tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96083252015-03-17T09:29:52.982-04:00The AnarchAngel The Random Mumblings of a Disgruntled Muscular Minarchist<br>
<br>
Igitur qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum<br>
<br>
<hr>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.comBlogger3871125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-45106425706752567642015-03-17T08:59:00.001-04:002015-03-17T09:06:49.092-04:00Patrick Day<br />I have repeated my basic statements on this day for the last few years, and since it's still what I want people to know about today, and what I want to say about today. I see no reason to change the practice this year.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9BZg2aLlgpA/VQgm2SyM6ZI/AAAAAAAAGAk/ObwJr4PA2MA/s1600/IrelandFlag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9BZg2aLlgpA/VQgm2SyM6ZI/AAAAAAAAGAk/ObwJr4PA2MA/s1600/IrelandFlag.jpg" height="376" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /><div style="font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><pre style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Nations</span></span></pre></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic;">I love my country and my country</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">my states and my counties</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">of purple mountains and four green fields</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">of pigskin and patriot games</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">of Stars and stripes and green and white</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">of micks and taigs</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">of my mother and my father</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">One world, and another</span></div><br /><br />I am a "genuine" Irish American... so much as anyone can be said to be so.<br /><br />Not some guy who's grandmother on my mothers fathers side stopped in limerick on the way over from France. I’m born to an Irish father and American mother, I'm a dual citizen, and I lived in Ireland for several years.<br /><br />Today is the feast day of Saint Patrick.<br /><br />While in theory Ireland’s most important holiday is St. Patricks day, in Ireland, the only people "celebrating" Patrick day (it's usually not called St. Patricks day) with wild partying, are the tourists (well... and the college students, but they'll celebrate the opening of a door with wild partying so...). Everyone else is home relaxing for the day off; or if they're still pious, off in church.<br /><br />To Americans, it's a drunkards day, but to the Irish... or at least to those who are still religious, or who still give a damn about Ireland, and what it means to be Irish; its significance is something like independence day, memorial day, and thanksgiving combined... though that doesn't exactly capture it.<br /><br />It's a religious holiday AND a national holiday, and one of the biggest worldwide symbols of Ireland there is... For good or ill.<br /><br />For several hundred years under the British, it was illegal to celebrate Patrick day, and the conspicuous display of green on this day could see one arrested. It was considered raising rebellion against the crown... something my family has a long history of (really, look it up, fascinating stuff).<br /><br />The celebration of this day is a very strong reminder to those who care about Ireland, and the Irish, what that means today, and what it has meant for the past 600 years.<br /><br />Lest anyone think by these statements that I'm a supporter of the IRA, let me just say <span style="font-style: italic;">ohh ah FUCK THE RA</span>. It isn't 1921 anymore, and those bastards have done more damage in the last 40 years than I can describe.<br /><br />What most don't realize, or even even hear of; is that the IRA (and Sinn Fein the theoretical peaceful political component) are a Marxist organization. Yes they want a united Ireland, but they want it to be a "socialist workers paradise" like Cuba.<br /><br />Yeah I think you all know how I feel about that.<br /><br />Of course the other thing most don't know is, that since the late '80s most of the violence has been initiated on the protestant side.<br /><br />The so called loyalists, and "protective associations" and other pathetic excuses for extortion gangs look at sectarianism as an ideal cover for their real goal: the control of the criminal underground of Northern Ireland.<br /><br />If you want to know what someones opinion of it is, you don't need ask... just listen to what they call it.<br /><br />If it's "The Cause", then they'll be singing "Boys of the Old Brigade" tonight. "The Struggle" is for those who march in orange down the Shankill road. The rest of us just call it "the troubles", and wish the lot of them to hell where they belong.<br /><br />The worst part?<br /><br />At this point, The Republic doesn't really want the north, and neither do the British. It's a gigantic economic drag (though it shouldn't be and certainly doesn't have to be), with extremely high unemployment, massive dole roles, very little sustainable economic base, and infrastructure costs that can't reasonably be borne... overall just a giant mess economically (part of that due to neglect, or outright hostility on the part of the British government, part of it the fault of the north itself).<br /><br />If you held a vote in all of Ireland today whether to unify the country, maybe half of the northerners would say yes, and probably three quarters of those in the republic would say HELL NO WE DON'T WANT YA.<br /><br />Which is a damn shame, because the Irish SHOULD be one nation, and one people. Even the English seem to accept that now; they just can't figure out how to extricate themselves from the situation while still doing right by her majesties subjects in the north counties AND saving face for the last 100 or so, or even the last 217 or so years (some would even say the last 900 or so years) of cockups.<br /><br />So I think you can see why on this day, I find the singing of "rebel" songs to be a bit angering.<br /><br />Now in honor of all the phony Irish assholes, and real Irish scumbags singing "The Men Behind the Wire" and "The boys of the old Brigade" in bars all over Ireland, Boston, New York, and Chicago...<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: red; font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-size: 180%; font-weight: bold;">FUCK YOU!!!!</span></span></div><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><b style="font-size: 130%;">The Patriot Game</b><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">-- Dominic Behan</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Come all you young rebels, and list while I sing,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">For the love of one's country is a terrible thing.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It banishes fear with the speed of a flame,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">And it makes us all part of the patriot game.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">My name is O'Hanlon, and I'm just gone sixteen.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">My home is in Monaghan, where I was weaned.,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I learned all my life cruel England to blame,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">And so I'm a part of the patriot game.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It's barely two years since I wandered away</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">With the local battalion of the bold IRA,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I'd read of our heroes, and I wanted the same</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">To play out my part in the patriot game.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">This island of ours has for long been half free.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Six counties are under John Bull's tyranny.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">So I gave up my Bible, to drill and to train</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">To play my own part in the patriot game.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">And now as I lie here, my body all holes</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I think of those traitors who bargained and sold.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I wish that my rifle had given the same</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">To those quislings who sold out the patriot game.</span>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-58938996929167762412015-03-04T20:26:00.000-05:002015-03-04T20:36:11.724-05:00Creators Are People TooFor many people who are not serious con-goers, or who don't go to a lot of live music shows, or who don't participate very much in the "author" or "independent/genre flim/tv" or "independent musician" regions of social media; the people who create the art they love, are seemingly remote... set apart from "normal" folks.<br /><br />Sometimes these folks wonder how it is I have met and/or know so many authors, actors, producers, directors, musicians and other artists and creators that I like; and how I've been lucky enough to have become friends with more than a few.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Simple...</span></b><br /><br /><br /><ol><li>Find out where they are going to be in public, be it a con, a book signing, a reading, a lecture, a showing, a festival, a small show, a big show you can get a backstage pass for, a public event of some kind...<br /><br />It's easy... they'll tell you when these things are happening, and ask you to show up and support their work.</li><li>Go there, while being reasonably well groomed and bathed, preferably with a few friends who also like the creator in question (though not a huge gang all at once... that can be overwhelming). Big Plus if you include an item of swag you bought from them in your accouterments. Big minus if you go as them in cosplay, because that's just creepy.<br /><br />Bringing me to...<br /></li><li>Say hi, and tell them you like the stuff they create.. but don't be creepy. You may love everything they have ever done, it has changed your life, you have defined yourself by it... but don't gush... too much anyway. A little gushing is OK.<br /></li><li>Remember, creators are fans too... And if you're a fan of their stuff, there's a good chance they're fans of other stuff you like, and you're fans of other stuff they like.<br /><br />Most creators were fans... and very big intense fans at that... long before they were creators themselves, and becoming a creator doesn't stop them being a fan. You may love their stuff... but you may both gush together over your mutual love of someone elses stuff.<br /><br />.. actually I can say without doubt, I have spent far more time with my creator friends, obsessing about the stuff that we love that other people have created, than every other subject combined<br /></li><li>Say hi on Facebook, or twitter, or their blogs, and add them. Follow their posts, interact with them. JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.</li></ol><br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Because creators are people too... No matter how remote they may seem</span></b><br /><br />Often, they're very lonely people, especially on the road stuck away from their families for weeks or even months at a time. Someone being genuinely nice to them and liking their stuff, and being genuine and human and real, and not just wanting a piece of them... is great.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">One step beyond...</span></b><br /><br />Now... here's the advanced level course, for those of you who would like to be IRL friends with your favorite authors, or at least hang out with them:<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Creators are often broke (or at least not rich and not on big expense accounts), and often like things such as steak and beverages.</span></b><br /><br />Yes, really, you and everyone you know may love everything they do, but most authors, actors, directors, and other creators in general, don't make very much money most of the time.. and often, most of what they do make goes into trying to make more of the stuff you like.<br /><br />It may be years in between books, or gigs with decent pay. In between, they're just trying to get by,often while living in the stupidly expensive New York or Los Angeles...<br /><br />...and no matter what, creators have lots of non creators to pay... Lawyers, agents, accountants. publishers... It's not cheap to be a creator who wants to make a living from their creation<br /><br />So, when they're out on the road promoting their creations, creators are often trying to maximize enjoyment and fan engagement, while minimizing cost to their personal wallets (most creators are eating on their own "thank god this is tax deductible" dime most of the time. Even if you can get one to do so, every dime another company fronts you for "promotional expenses" is probably 2 dimes taken out of your earnings).<br /><br />So, if you're cool, and you're not creepy, and after interacting you seem to like them, and they seem to like you...<b> If you get the opportunity, offer them free food and beverages</b>.<br /><br />This works particularly well if that food is something that your city is particularly good at that they haven't tried, or it's one of their favorites, or if it's beyond their normal budget.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">How do you do that?</span></b><br /><br />Again, simple:<br /><br />"Hey... we really like what you do. We're going to get some of this awesome food. If you've got time and are up for it, we'd love to have you come get some of this awesome food with us. Because we love what you do, we'd be really happy if you'd let us buy you lunch/dinner/breakfast/elevenses"<br /><br />Yes, really, it's just that simple...<br /><br />If they have time, and you've been cool and non-creepy, there's a very good chance they'll take it. And if they don't have time, they'll still be happy you offered, because they know it means you like them, and their stuff.<br /><br />Because the most important thing you have to remember, is that mostly, CREATORS ARE JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.<br /><br />...except usually more broke, and with less time, and less room in their heads for stuff other than what they are creating.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-13894912071408499562015-02-26T17:34:00.000-05:002015-02-26T17:54:28.675-05:00Stop Calling Government Regulation Net NeutralityStop using "net neutrality" to refer to government regulation of the internet.<br /><br /> That's not what net neutrality is, and it's certainly not what the government regulations promulgated by the FCC today are, in this case "Common Carrier Rules".<br /><br /> People who don't know any better are celebrating todays faux "net neutrality" FCC action as a victory for freedom and free speech on the internet, when in fact, it's exactly the opposite.<br /><br /> I've <a href="http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2014/11/net-neutrality-obama-cruz-how-about.html">written extensively about net neutrality</a> and this is very much NOT it.<span style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;"><br /></span></span><br />All the FCC has done today, is impose common carrier regulation on every ISP (oh and by the way, lots of other organizations as well who "provide internet access". No-one has any idea how the regulations are going to be finalized, what the language will mean, who will be impacted and how... except everyone knows it's going to cost a lot), instead of just the telephone companies it was already imposed on. Verizon for example, who was already one of the worst violators of net neutrality, even with common carrier regulation already in place for them.<br /><br />Thus it makes competition and breaking of existing monopolies even harder, while not actually doing a damn thing to secure or improve neutrality... oh and it gives the FCC more control over the internet.<br /><br />Absolutely none of those are good things.<br /><br />Common carrier regulation is a big part of what made the current near monopolies on Internet access happy in the first place, because small independent companies couldn't compete with the giant Telcom conglomerates under those regulations. So, they all got swallowed up.<br /><br />I've been working with telecommunications companies, and common carrier regulations, for more than 20 years. I'm an expert in governance and regulatory compliance, and I can tell you right now, NOBODY understands these regulations, because they are not capable of being understood.<br /><br />These regulations and the rulings and case law associated with them go back to 1930s... and in some particulars all the way back to the 1870s. And of course, rather than replace them with something clear when they wanted to make new regulations, congress and the FCC just amended and added on and countermanded and...<br /><br />I've flowcharted them before to try to see what applied how and where and when... the only thing I could come up with was "nobody knows for sure, it all depends what a regulator or judge says at the time".<br /><br />This wasn't a blow for freedom and free speech... This was a giveaway to big corporate donors in the telecommunications industry. <br /><br />The big telcos have been trying to get their primary competition, non-telco ISPs, burdened with the same regulatory load they labor under, for DECADES. Now, in one stroke, the FCC at the personal direction of the president, has given it to them. <br /><br />Oh and guess what else common carrier regulation includes... SURVEILLANCE. All common carriers are required to provide the government and law enforcement "reasonable access" for surveillance, as well as to give up records, usage details, and other subscriber and user data, WITHOUT A WARRANT.<br /><br />What does "reasonable access" mean? Whatever the government says it means... and if you think I'm exaggerating, I'm not. I've dealt with the FBI on this issue, and that's a direct quote.<br /><br />Yes, this is not only a massive corporate crony handout, it's also a huge gimme to the FBI and the NSA, who have wanted all ISPs stuck under common carrier for years as well.<br /><br />Stop calling government regulation of the internet "net neutrality". Letting the liars control the language helps them lie to you.<br /><br />Net neutrality is not government regulation, and these regulations are certainly not net neutrality, nor anything like it. Don't be taken in by fraud, cronyism, and statism, masquerading as freedom.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-19339579260345535092015-02-26T13:07:00.001-05:002015-02-26T15:06:48.522-05:00Six men, three songs, a lifetime of music<p dir="ltr">I don't know about anyone else, but I can tell you the exact moment I decided I had to learn to play guitar: July 3rd 1985, at about 3:45 in the afternoon.</p><p dir="ltr">It was a particular song, played in a particular way, in a particular context. I'd heard the song many times before, but this was different. This was... powerful. </p><p dir="ltr">It hit me in the gut, grabbed me by the balls, and said "YOU WILL DO THIS".</p><p dir="ltr">Unfortunately, my mother didnt think I was old enough for my own guitar yet (I had been taking vocal, piano, and music theory lessons for several years already by then). She made me wait... </p><p dir="ltr">Maybe she was hoping I would change my mind, since my dad played guitar and she had some bad memories and associations there. She aways wanted me to play sax, which I started learning as a kid, but the reeds gave me mouth sores so I had to stop, and I had the same problem when I tried to learn trumpet (in retrospect, we were pretty poor that year, and the next couple years, and you could rent used band instruments for a few dollars a month but not guitars and amplifiers). </p><p dir="ltr">So I spent the next four years and five months messing about with other people's acoustic guitars, in my music classes, and family friends and friends, and anything I could get my hands on... before my mother finally bought me my own electric guitar. </p><p dir="ltr">Those years of messing with other people acoustics, and never knowing what tuning they'd be in, or whether theyd be in tune, or what the strings would feel like; imprinted on my so much, that every time I pick up a guitar, I automatically finger and play an augmented open G chord.</p><p dir="ltr">I play the augmented open G, because it let's you hear the relative tuning and intonation of every string clearly and immediately, and highlights any defects in the guitar and it's setup. It also sounds good arpeggiated, and several songs can be played within the arpeggiation.</p><p dir="ltr">Still today, my fingers just automatically reset to that position by default, whenever I'm not specifically playing anything else... and it's almost always the last thing I play before I put the guitar down, just by reflex.</p><p dir="ltr">My first guitar was a bright red Epiphone Stratocopy (an sm-3), purchased Christmas of '89 from Daddy's Junky Music, in Boston Massachusetts.</p><p dir="ltr">I very much wanted a Strat', very specifically because of two other songs, and two other players... again both of which grabbed me and said "you will will do this". </p><p dir="ltr">Those two songs ended up being the first rock songs I ever learned to play... That first song, that grabbed me back in 1985, was quite a lot harder, and took a lot longer to learn... and hell, I still can't play it "right" more than 25 years later... I don't think anybody can play it quite right, except for the true original.</p><p dir="ltr">So, I guess I can credit five... well, really six... people (all but one were guitarists), and three songs, with making me absolutely need to play electric guitar.</p><p dir="ltr">If you're a guitarist, or a music nerd, I'm sure you know what those three songs are and who three of those guitarists are, without even thinking about it.</p><p dir="ltr">The other three people (two guitarists) in question might be a surprise, but the answer is in that date above.</p><p dir="ltr">Anybody want to guess who those people are, and what the songs are?</p>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-87933444078424280412015-02-25T03:24:00.001-05:002015-02-25T03:24:33.259-05:00Quality Price Floors, Globalization, and the Harmful Notion of "Just a Red Dot"I get this question or hear this comment all the time... People think they're going to &nbsp;"save money on their optics" with "just a red dot".<br /><br />Unfortunately, that's a very harmful idea.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">There is no such thing as "just a red dot"&nbsp;</span></b><br /><br />Yeah, sure, you absolutely can save money going with a red dot type sight over a scope... A top quality Red Dot is a LOT cheaper than a top quality scope.<br /><br />And frankly, for most of the rifle shooting that most people do (plinking and casual target shooting, possibly some short range competition shooting; even hunting at 100 yards or less... which in most of the country, is most hunting), a 1x red dot (or holosight or similar), or even a 2x or 4x red dot, would be better for their needs than a traditional scope anyway.<br /><br />That's another piece for another day... but I really do think that most of the shooting missions, most people are buying most scopes for; would be better served, for less money, with a quality 1x-4x dot sight (either in tube, or with a magnifier).<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">So how much exactly is "a lot cheaper"?</span></b><br /><br /><i>All these numbers &nbsp;are current as of February 2015. I may update this later on,"acceptable" and "good" price points have fallen significantly over the last 20ish years, and particularly in the last 5, as higher precision higher quality manufacturing has become more widely available and less expensive).</i><br /><i><br /></i>Red dots are generally somewhat less complex designs than scopes of equivalent quality; requiring less, and less expensive, materials and manufacturing technologies and processes. This generally results in a lower price for a given quality of optic.<i><br /></i><br />You're talking about $150-600 for a decent, tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable Red Dot (Something like Vortex StrikeFire to Aimpoint or Trijicons mid range sights); up to around $1,000-$1400 at the top end (with some outliers up to around $3,000).<br /><br />With traditional multi-lens reticle in tube optics (scopes), you're looking at around $300-400 for the lower end of decent, tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable; moderate to high magnifications scopes. Possibly a bit cheaper ($200ish) for acceptable lower magnification, less precise, less "tough" applications, and climbing up to around $2500-$3,000 on the high end, with some outliers in the $3500 to $6,000 range (Schmidt &amp; Bender or U.S. Optics for example).<br /><br />That list of qualifications... decent (meaning reasonable quality design, materials, manufacturing finish etc...), tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable... is rather important. Critical in fact.<br /><br />Those are the basic properties you need from any sighting device in order for it to be useful, and provide value, no matter what the purpose or mission you're trying to fulfill.<br /><br />A sighting device that isn't decent, tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable, is actually HARMFUL to whatever you are doing. You're better off without it, than with it, no matter how little it costs, and what capability it seems to provide.<br /><br />Of course, that's rather a broad price range, but still, with both scopes and red dot sights "you get what you pay for" generally applies (there are some exceptions of course).<br /><br />While there are times you do pay a premium for "name" or reputation to an extent**, if you need the capabilities the better brands or product lines provide, they really are worth the money.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>** Yes...Some manufacturers in particular charge premium prices for midrange product, or too high a premium for high end; thus you can get better optics with other brands for the same money, or as good for less.&nbsp;And of course, the reverse is true. There are some brands well known for giving you much more for your money than other brands at the same price point, or the same capability and quality at a much lower pricepoint.<br /> <br />Which are which? That's another piece for another day.</i></blockquote><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Hit the floor...</span></b><br /><br />Most importantly regarding price, there are very definite price floors for acceptable quality optical sights. <br /><br />Most people with even a bit of knowledge and experience, understand this price floor applies to scopes. They don't expect a scope you buy in a blister pack at Wal Mart to be very good, or even "acceptable".<br /><br />Unfortunately, many people (even many of the same people who seem to understand the concept of a price floor for scopes) don't seem to understand that price floors apply just as much to red dots as to scopes.<br /><br />No-one with any knowledge or experience in firearms optics, expects a $50 or even $100 scope to be much good... and generally $150-$200 is just into the "acceptable" range (Redfield, low end Vortex, low end Nikon etc....).<br /><br />So why do they expect any better out of a $50 or $100 red dot? A red dot you can buy in a blister pack, isn't going to be any better than a scope you can buy in a blister pack.<br /><br />Red dot optics are every bit as much precision optical instruments as scopes are... They're just somewhat simpler designs, using less of the most expensive components and manufacturing processes.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Simpler and less, not "simple" and "inexpensive".</span></b><br /><br />There is just a minimum level of materials and design quality, labor, manufacturing, and quality control, to produce an acceptable optical sight of any type. These don't change, no matter how simple the optic is, how short a range it's intended for, how big a dot or tube etc...<br /><br />Specifically, there are very definite minimums for quality of adjustment mechanisms, sight barrel/tube/body materials and machining, lenses (even in a 1x optic), lens mounting, adhesives coatings and finishes, skill and precision of assembly, tolerances and clearances, and quality inspection and testing.<br /><br />These are real minimums, that apply to ANY optic of any type or design.<br /><br />One flat plate of glass with no magnification, and an adjustment mechanism that's repeatable to under 1 moa (and preferably under 1/4 moa); that will take a slight knock on the sight, being adjusted a few hundred times, and getting lightly rained on, and which will &nbsp;still stay precise and repeatable for years (a c-more sight isn't much more than that really); is going to cost nearly as much as a 40mm 2-6x zoom that can meet those same criteria and standards.<br /><br />The expensive part isn't the materials, it's the manufacturing processes, labor, and quality control. That's probably more than 80% of the cost of ANY optic, no matter what its design, or where it's made.<br /><br />These minimums go up... sometimes WAY up... with more difficult mission requirements, but they never go below that absolute floor. You can't go below those minimums, and still be decent, tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable.<br /><br />Right now, that floor is pretty clear, and it's around $150-$200 for "acceptable" in a lower magnification scope, or not quite so tough red dot; and $300 to $400 for "good" in a lower to medium magnification scope, or somewhat tougher red dot.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">What do you get for your money?</span></b><br /><br />More money tends to add more precision in the optics and adjustment mechanisms, more toughness, and higher quality materials, coatings, and finishes.<br /><br />Less money on the other hand, generally results in an optic that won't hold zero, won't have consistent and precise adjustments, won't return to zero after adjusting, and won't take any rough handling without breaking... Or even just breaking on its own for no reason.<br /><br />Really... Just don't do it. It's a waste of money. You'll end up buying and breaking 3 or 4 of the things and hating it the entire time; while spending far more than an acceptable or even a very good optic would have cost in the first place.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">So who makes "acceptable" or "good" optics at a low price?</span></b><br /><br />The least expensive optics that I have generally found acceptable or better, are:<br /><ul><li><b>Nikon:&nbsp;</b>Monarch or higher are good to excellent, limited lifetime warranty</li><li><b>Redfield:&nbsp;</b>Great quality, low price high value, some USA made, and a 100% lifetime warranty</li><li><b>Burris: E</b>xcellent quality, great value, some USA made, and a 100% lifetime warranty</li><li><b>Vortex:&nbsp;</b>Diamondback or higher are good to excellent quality, good to great price and always great value, some US made, and all have a 100% lifetime warranty</li><li><b>Leupold: </b>Good to excellent quality, good to terrible price leading to anywhere from great to poor value, sometimes erratic but generally excellent customer service, all USA made, and a 100% lifetime warranty (they also own Redfield)</li><li><b>Nightforce:</b> Higher priced line ($800 to $3,000), but also among the best quality in the world, and among the lowest price for the quality and capability they offer. As good as optics costing 50% to 200% more. All USA made, with excellent customer service, and a 100% lifetime warranty.</li></ul><div>More expensive brands that are also generally very good, include (but are not limited to) Pentax's mid range and higher end models, Aimpoint, Trijicon, Zeiss, Schmidt and Bender, Hensoldt, ELCAN, Leica, Swarovski, and US Optics.<br /></div><b><span style="color: red;">Made in WHERE... Huh?</span></b><br /><br />IN GENERAL... and this is a big generalization with exceptions... Regardless of the brand name an optic is sold under, if that optic is manufactured in the U.S., western Europe, or Japan, it's going to be "good" or better. Frankly, with the cost of manufacturing products in those places, it doesn't make sense not to.<br /><br />However, even the "premium" brands sometimes have factories in eastern Europe (particularly Poland and the Czech republic), the Philippines, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, Sri Lanka, and increasingly mainland China.<br /><br />These are sometimes owned and operated directly by the companies in question, and sometimes they are very high quality, usually long term, subcontracting deals with excellent third party manufacturers.<br /><br />So... fortunately for lower prices, higher quality and more competition... but unfortunately for figuring out what to buy (or what not to)... While where it's made, is often a positive indicator of quality, it isn't necessarily an indicator of a lack of quality.<br /><br />Don't discount something just because it's made in China (or anywhere else). Process, technology, materials, and quality control are all more important than nation of origin. Some excellent optics are coming out of China (and everywhere else), at very attractive prices.<br /><br />Sadly, brand name isn't always an indicator of quality either, because some major brands with excellent quality product lines, also produce lower priced lower quality product lines (or worse... more on that later).<br /><br /><br />Some companies may even &nbsp;subcontract out their lower cost product lines to lower quality OEMs (more on that below). For example, some Nikon ProStaff, and I believe all Vortex Crossfire line optics, are not actually made by Nikon or Vortex (other companies do this as well, I'm just using these two as an example).<br /><br />As of 2014, I believe those product lines are subcontracted out to a Chinese company, who also make optics for NCstar, Barska, Bushnell, Tasco, and other low end brands (and sometimes including what seem to be the same or similar designs... Or at least visible external design).<br /><br />The optics manufactured for Nikon and Vortex are definitely manufactured to higher quality standards than those for low end brands, but not to the same standard as Nikon or Vortex's in house manufactured product lines.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">What about other brands?&nbsp;</span></b><br /><br />Here's the thing... You never know. Sometimes you're going to get a great piece for a great price, sometimes not so much.<br /><br />I have seen some of the Mueller, Millet, Weaver, Leatherwood, Tasco, Bushnell etc... (name brands which are licensed and OEM contracted out to offshore manufacturers) scopes be good or even excellent... and I've seen another scope from the same "brand", at the same price point... even at higher price points, be unacceptable. <br /><br />In fact I've seen two examples of the same model vary from "pretty good" to "total junk.<br /><br />And these aren't all low end, low price models. Millet scopes run from $150 to $500. Some Weaver models run as high as $1,500 etc...<br /><br />In my experience, and those of many I know and trust; some of those $500 to $1500 models have been excellent... Unfortunately, some have been just OK, and some have been entirely unacceptable.<br /><br />The problem, is that Millet, Mueller etc... aren't actually made by Millet and Mueller. Either they contract production out to offshore factories (usually on a per production run basis, but sometimes on a long term year to year or multi-year basis, which usually results in higher quality), or an offshore manufacture pays the name owners for the right to make scopes with that name. <br /><br />It can work both ways, sometimes simultaneously, and through multiple levels of naming rights licensing, subcontracting, or both.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Land of confusion</span></b><br /><br />Bushnell is a prime example of the confusion this can create. <br /><br />First, Bushnell is the parent company of Simmons, Millet, Tasco, Browning and Bausch and Lomb (for rifle scopes and binoculars only).<br /><br />Their lower end lines generally run from junk, to just barely "acceptable". Their "elite" line theoretically their top of the line best quality optics. However, the elite line consists of 40 someodd models with different features and specifications, and spanning a price range from $200 to $2,000.<br /><br />The biggest issue is however, that all Bushnell scopes (and any of their other brands) "Elite" or otherwise, are contracted out to different manufacturers on a model to model basis, and sometimes even a production run to production run basis. The same model may be manufactured by three different companies in three different years, in three different countries, and with three different resulting quality levels.<br /><br />As a result, the "Elite" line end up ranging in quality from "acceptable" (I haven't seen one yet that wasn't at least acceptable), to truly excellent. Bushnell's higher end Elite models are generally made in Japan, by two of the worlds best optics manufacturers, to the highest standards; or in Philippines Sometimes, if one of those manufacturers has excess capacity, they'll also make some of the lower end models, or they'll have extra top quality components, which they'll send out to be put into lower level product lines.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">It's the system man...</span></b><br /><br />This system of contract manufacture and licensing, is how the EXACT same design can be sold under a dozen different brand names from NCstar and Barska, to TruGlo, Tasco, and Bushnell, at price points from $29 to $89.<br /><br />Sometimes... sadly, frequently... those widely divergent price points are for the exact same product, with the same materials and quality control, just a different brand name stamped on them.<br /><br />Sometimes, for a higher price you actually get the same design, but with better materials and quality control. <br /><br />Sometimes for a higher price you get the same external design, but with better designed internals, and higher quality of materials and manufacturing.<br /><br />Worst of all, sometimes the same brand name and model number, sold at the same price, will start off very high quality, and over time, be reduced in quality, without reducing in price.<br /><br />So, you might get a great example from one of these contracted brands, or you might get junk. You won't know until you actually get it into your hands, and test it (by shooting the square repeatedly to test for return to zero, and ability to maintain zero with recoil for example). If they have a great warranty and return policy... great. If not... Who knows.<br /><br />Personally, unless I can inspect them beforehand, and test them without penalty, I choose to stick with the major brands who keep manufacture in house, or to top quality subcontractors only.<br /><div><br /></div>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-24289690637787685652015-02-14T09:50:00.001-05:002015-02-14T10:00:36.666-05:00Ten Years... That's Like a Billion Internet Years Right?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rSr827_WN4o/VN9hzF4SGlI/AAAAAAAAF7s/rtGf-IEopyY/s1600/ChrisandBoy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rSr827_WN4o/VN9hzF4SGlI/AAAAAAAAF7s/rtGf-IEopyY/s1600/ChrisandBoy.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br />Ten years ago today, I wrote this:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i><a href="http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/02/first-post.html">Monday, February 14, 2005</a>First Post!!!!!</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Ok folks, people have been telling me to write my own blog for two years now, so finally, here it is.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Yeah I said I'd get around to it before, but I'm lazy, what can I say.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>The initial content is mostly going to be stuff I've written for other peoples blogs, and fora etc...</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Suggestions, praise, worship, and deification are all welcome.</i></blockquote><div>The <a href="http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2010/02/1826-days-2787-posts-2-million-hits-3.html">five years ago</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Yes, today is my fifth blogiversary.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>It's amazing how much has changed in my life in the last five years. I'm married, with children... wow... damn...</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>I mean, at 16, I thought it'd be a miracle if I lived past 30... and if I'd gone on the way I was going, it would've been.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Now I'm looking hard at "middle age"; having achieved nearly half of everything I've ever really wanted... and another 30 or so years... maybe 40 if I'm lucky... to achieve or acquire the other half before my ability to achieve is significantly diminished.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Not that I don't have troubles, and trials, and difficulties and issues... perhaps more than my share... but I always have had, and I'm sure always will have them. It's the human condition.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Moments like this, I just look around me and I can't help but think how lucky I am. How hard I've worked, how much I've sacrificed, how many people I've helped or hurt, or loved, or fought with along the way... but most of all how lucky I've been.<br />I simply cannot believe where I am, where I might soon be, and just how lucky I am for that.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Thank you all for reading this stuff that spills out of my brain. It humbles me that so many people want to listen. I don't do this for you, I do it for my own sanity; but believe me, I appreciate you.</i></blockquote><i>In th</i>ose ten years, my words have been read at least 5 million times, by at least hundreds of thousands.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Damn.</div><div><br /></div><div>In those ten years, my life has changed so much. A wife and two daughters. Moving from Arizona to Idaho to New Hampshire to Florida. My son. Honestly, I just can't believe what a long strange trip it's been.</div><div><br />The last four of those years have been... pretty hard honestly. The cancer, the pain, the brain fog, the... everything... <br /><br />Hell, it's been more than... 18 months I think, since I've been out shooting. But every day I wake up on the right side of the ground, is a good day.<br /><br />I know I don't write here very much anymore (<a href="http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2014/10/bloggings-not-dead-quite.html">an explanation of that here</a>). Most of what I'm writing is on facebook, and please feel free to friend or follow me there. I save the blog for the longer pieces, more personal or more details... But I'm still here. Still writing, still reading, still getting pissed off and writing a few thousand words, for whoever is still reading.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>So... I guess just... Thank you.</div>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-65969667087390749792015-02-12T23:55:00.002-05:002015-02-13T02:36:38.234-05:00Guitar Heresy: PA speakers are Better than CabsIf you really want to know how your amplifier, your guitar, or your bass sound; don't use a guitar or bass cab. Instead, use a high quality full range PA speaker of appropriate impedance for your amp.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Wait what?</span></b><br /><br />Ayup, really, a high quality full range PA speaker, of the appropriate size, and properly set up; will always be more accurate, and often sound better, than all but the best guitar or bass cabinets; while being lighter, more durable, and MUCH cheaper.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">What do you mean by "High Quality and Full Range" ?</span></b><br /><br />By high quality, and full range, I mean a speaker that:<br /><br />1. Is sturdily constructed, with no rattles, undamped harmonics etc<br />2. Has proper enclosure volume for its drivers<br />3. Is properly designed for its drivers<br />4. Has high sensitivity (minimum of 96db to 101db or so)<br />5. Has a broad flat frequency response (+/- less than 3db, preferably +/- 1db) in the frequency range of your instrument, and it's harmonic overtones to the 12th multiple of the fundamental.<br /><br />That frequency range would be 31hz to 524hz (B0 to C5) for a 24 fret 6 string bass, with overtones to 6.3khz; and 82hz to 1.3khz (e2 to e6) for a 24 fret guitar, with overtones to 15.6khz.<br /><br />The overtones are important, but they damp out very rapidly with each harmonic doubling. The first four multiples above the fundamental are called the "presence", and they can be heard and felt, inside ones head (particularly when amplifying acoustic stringed instruments). Generally because of harmonic attenuation, it's impossible to hear or feel anything above the 8th multiple of any fundamental (and above the fourth it's essentially inaudible) but you want the extra headroom, because even the best speakers attenuate towards the ends of their response curves, and harmonic attenuation mostly damps out the quieter harmonics above the second to fourth multiple already (I'm speaking in terms of multiples of the fundamental, instead of first through 16th harmonic, because I don't want to get into the variability of harmonics with scale, tuning, time and periodicity, resonating chambers, free air space etc...).<br /><br />Speaking of that, you'll note that the lowest frequency on a five and six string bass is 31hz (it's 41hz on a 4 string). Unfortunately, almost no speakers have decent, clear, uncolored response below 45-50hz, even those in high quality bass cabinets. A good full range PA speaker will generally go down to between 45hz and 55hz, a will a good bass cab (classic Ampeg SVT cabs only go down to 58hz<br /><br />This is deliberate, because unless you use a giant 15" or 18" subwoofer, (or use special very expensive 10" or 12" drivers) you just can't do 40hz or below and still sound good. Even with the giant subwoofer, the bass can sound muddy and rumbly. <br /><br />Better PA speakers and bass cabinets still respond at frequencies under 455-55hz, they just roll off more than 3db (better speakers might have something like -3-6db at 5hz under nominal, and -6-10db at 10hz under nominal, with around 1-1.5db/hz attenuation for the next 10hz under nominal). This actually has the effect of making the bass sound "cleaner" and clearer; though at 31hz, it's still more felt than heard.<br /><br />There are a few bass cabinets that have good response in those sub-bass ranges, like the Markbass standard 4x10 (response down to 35hz), and Ampeg Pro-Neo series (28hz in the 15" and 38hz in the 4x10,), but they're very expensive (they run about $900 to $1500).<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Ok... so why is a PA speaker more accurate and "better"?</span></b><br /><br />Frankly, most guitar cabs flat out suck. They're inefficient, heavy, expensive, and don't sound very good. <br /><br />Generally, only the very best (and often most expensive) guitar caps sound great (or often, even good), and even then only in specific situations, for specific tones, with specific amps (because they have a strongly colored and biased voicing).<br /><br />Even just a mid quality PA speaker, is generally better at reproducing sound accurately, than a very high quality guitar cab. The frequency response will be flatter and the sound will be clearer, with neutral coloration and voicing. <br /><br />This is because a guitar cabs are deliberately designed, and their drivers are deliberately biased, to emphasize certain tones and attenuate certain tones (mostly attenuating very high and very low frequencies, with a curved response on the mids and mid-highs). &nbsp;When the speakers significantly alter the sound coming to them from the amp, this is called strong coloration, or strong voicing.<br /><br />In general, it's very difficult (and expensive) for an 8", 10", or 12" driver to have desirable tonal characteristics across the full range of guitar frequencies and overtones, and most cabinets don't include high frequency horns (and the ones that do, generally don't voicematch them very well, blend them very well, or use good quality crossover networks, so they often sound harsh, thin, and "squeal" or "crackle").<br /><br />Again, only the very highest quality (and most expensive) guitar cabs do so well (or at all); whereas even lower end PA speakers are specifically designed to use multiple drivers (a 12" or 15" full range will typically be a 3 way speaker, and may be as much as a dual woofer 5 way) to produce pleasing and even frequency response across the entire range of instrumental and vocal frequencies and their audible and "presence" overtones.<br /><br />A single high quality high performance driver for a guitar cab, might cost as much as $450, and even midrange drivers can run $90 to $150. You can see how in a cheaper 2x12 cabinet retailing for $300, or combo retailing for $600, they've got to be buying lower end drivers, that just aren't that good.<br /><br />At last with a combo amp, the manufacturer should have chosen drivers that match well with the amplifier. It's nearly impossible for a strongly voiced cabinet to sound good with a lot of different amplifiers. Manufacturers have to either try to make it as neutral as possible, in which case guitarists don't want it ("it sounds dead" or "it sounds cold"... it doesn't, it sounds neutral you just don't know how to use your gear to get the sound you want instead of having it done for you by the "strongly voiced" drivers), or give it a strong voice that sounds good for the amp they think most customers will want to use with it, for the style of music they think most customers will play with it.<br /><br />This is one reason why you see many artists in certain styles of music or with certain play styles, all seem to have &nbsp;a strong preference for the same amps and cabs. It's not just fashion (though in part it is), it's because the manufacturer specifically voices those amps and cabs, to sound good for that style of music and play style.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Ok, forget about "voice" and "color", what about the rest of "better" ?</span></b><br /><br />Decent PA speakers are also generally much more efficient than guitar cabs of equivalent quality, volume, and tone; because all but the very best guitar cabs have quite low sensitivity (some as low as 82db, and 86-92db are not uncommon for cheaper cabs and speakers, as opposed to 96-101db for the best of both PA speakers and cabs). <br /><br />Higher sensitivity, means that for a given power level output to the speaker, the volume output will be louder. A 3db difference in sensitivity, means DOUBLE or HALF the power is required to produce the same volume.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i><b>An aside on speaker sensitivity, volume, and solid state vs tube amps:</b>&nbsp;</i><i>Sensitivity ratings are given as db of sound energy output 1 watt, at 1 meter away from the speaker.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>W</i><i>e don't hear 3db as a doubling of volume. 3db sounds roughly 10% louder to our ears, but it is a doubling of sound energy, and a doubling of input power.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>It takes a 10db change for our ears to hear a doubling in volume, as well as taking 10 times the power (to double volume at the same frequency, impedance, and sensitivity).</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>However, because both our hearing, and the power requirements for sound energy are logarithmic, a 3db more sensitive speaker, will sound about twice as loud, if it's given 5 times the power as the less sensitive speaker, instead of 10 times the power.</i>&nbsp;<i>The difference gets even starker at 6db, or 9db and so on.</i>&nbsp;&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>The most efficient speaker cabinet I've ever heard of was 103db. The least, 82db. Cheap combo amps will often have 86db or 89db speakers, while more expensive combos and cabs will generally 96db or 99db sensitivity. Let's see how that works out:&nbsp;</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>An 82db speaker will output 82db at 1 watt, 85db at 2 watts, 88db at 4 watts, 91db at 8 watts, 92db at 10 watts, 95db at 10 watts, 98</i><i>db at 40 watts, 101db at 80 watts, and about 104db at 100 watts.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>An 86db speaker will output 86db at 1 watt, 89db at 2 watts, 92db at 4 watts, 95db at 8 watts, 96db at 10 watts, 99db at 20 watts, 102db at 40 watts, 105db at 80 watts, and about 106db at 100 watts.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>A 96db speaker will output&nbsp;96db at 1 watt, 99db at 2 watts, 102db at 4 watts, 105db at 8 watts, 106db at 10 watts, 109db at 20 watts, 112db at 40 watts, 115db at 80 watts, and about 116db at 100 watts.&nbsp;</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>A 99db speaker will output 99db at 1 watt, 102db at 2 watts, 105db at 4 watts, 108db at 8 watts, 109db at 10 watts,&nbsp;</i><i>112db at 20 watts, 115db at 40 watts, 118db at 80 watts, and about 119db at 100 watts.&nbsp;</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>A 101db speaker will output 101db at 1 watt, 103db at 2 watts, 106db at 4 watts, 109db at 8 watts, 111db at 10 watts,&nbsp;</i><i>114db at 20 watts, 117db at 40 watts, 120db at 80 watts, and about 121db at 100 watts.&nbsp;</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>A 103db speaker will output 103db at 1 watt, 106db at 2 watts, 109db at 4 watts, 112db at 8 watts, 113db at 10 watts,&nbsp;</i><i>116db at 20 watts, 119db at 40 watts, 122db at 80 watts, and about 123db at 100 watts.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>You'll note the 103db speaker is essentially as loud with one watt, as the 82db speaker is with 100 watts. It's also louder with 40 watts, than the 99db speaker is with 100; or louder at 20 watts, than the 96db speaker is at 100.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>This efficiency factor by the way, combined with much higher gain in the preamp stages (which makes things sound louder at lower overall volume levels); is why cheap "100 watt" solid state amps, sound much quieter than very expensive 15 watt tube amps. The cheap solid state amp might have even cheaper 86db drivers in it. The tube amps have expensive 99db or even 101db sensitivity drivers.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>That tube amp can get about 50% louder with 99db speakers at 15 watts, than the cheap solid state can with 86db speakers at 100 watts. With 101db speakers, it can get about 70% louder, and with 103db speakers it can get almost double the volume.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Tube amps used expensive high efficiency speakers, because they had to, because otherwise they didn't have enough power to get loud, or they would badly overheat. Solid state amps are much easier and cheaper to crank up the power on, and so they could afford to use cheaper, less efficient drivers.&nbsp;</i></blockquote><br />Higher sensitivity also means allows a given sound at a given level, to be reproduced using less power, more accurately, with less tonal coloration or distortion (this is called headroom).<br /><br />PA speakers are also generally much lighter, and often much better built and tougher than guitar cabs, even though they are much cheaper. <br /><br />For some reason, many guitar cabs are surprisingly fragile. In part because they are meant to be prettier (they're often covered in decorative and relatively expensive this textured vinyl for example, vs throwaway dark grey or black industrial carpetlike material). In part it's because decent guitar drivers are VERY heavy, and can do damage to themselves and the cabs structure, if bumped about too much.<br /><br />Whereas PA speakers are built to be knocked around. They're lighter, because the drivers they use weigh much less, and aren't as deep, so they can fit in smaller enclosures. These factors allow PA speakers to weigh as little as half the weight of an equivalent guitar cab, while still being built tougher.<br /><br />These by the way, are several of the reason why I'm using a PA speaker for testing amps and guitars, and I'm not using my Ampeg 2x10 bass cab (I don't have a guitar cab right now). The cab is voiced specifically for bass, and in particular for the Ampeg PF500 and PF800 amplifiers (the other reason is I don't want to blow my good cab, if an amp malfunctions).<br /><br />Guitars actually sound great played through bass amps and cabs by the way, particularly if you have a full range cab with a high frequency horn and good crossover (my Ampeg 2x10 PF-210he has +/-2b or less from 53hz to 17khz, at 98db, covering the full range of guitar harmonics with plenty of headroom). <br /><br />Guitarists have been using bass amps for more power and a deeper "growl" tone, since Leo Fender invented the modern electric solidbody bass, and the first dedicated bass amp (in 1951 and 1952 respectively); particularly after they introduced the 50 watt 4x10 model in 1956 (setting the pattern for both bass and guitar speaker cabinets ever since).<br /><br />In fact, the first "stacks" were Fender Bassman amp heads, with 4x10 bass cabinets; from way back in '60, when the loudest guitar amps you could get were Vox AC30s (30 watt 2x12. Still used by many artists today, including Brian May and the Edge. They mic them up on stage for the PA). Guitarists loved them, and bought every one that Fender could make. Even today, they are among the most prized vintage amps, easily costing $5,000 to $10,000.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>In fact, guitarists loved them so much, and they were so rare and expensive, that Jim Marshall modified one to make his famous Marshall JTM45 (the first Marshall amp), deciding to use 4x12 cabinets with celestion speakers... And the Marshall legend was born.</i></blockquote>That said, the bass amps and cabs are distinctly biased for bass, and definitely do color the tone.<br /><br />When I'm testing, repairing, or reconditioning an amp or guitar, I want to hear as close to an accurate, uncolored, unshaped, neutral voiced tone as possible. A decent PA speaker is the best way to do that, without spending a massive amount of money.<br /><br />I would love to have a top quality 2x10, 2x12, 4x10, or 4x12 guitar cab. Unfortunately, they're VERY expensive ($600 to $2000), as well as heavy and huge. Guitar cabs smaller than 2x10, generally sound like crap, and are still VERY expensive ($200 to $600 for good ones. The cheapest are 1x8", still cost $100 to $400, and they mostly sound like crap until you're past the midpoint of that price range).<br /><br />Even just a half decent 10" or 12", two or three way, PA speaker ($100 to $300), set up properly, will sound as good or better, than all but the very best guitar cabinets.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Don't think so? I'll prove it.</span></b><br /><br />Guess what... Any live show you've been to bigger than a coffee house or pub (and probably a lot of those gigs too), most of the guitar sound you heard wasn't coming from a Marshall stack. It was probably coming from that Marshalls preamp or DI output (or even directly off the pedalboard into a DI box), on a direct patch to the mixer, and out to the PA system.<br /><br />The amp may or may not have also had the cabinets miked up and mixed in, but stage miking is difficult and inconsistent, and you need a wide variety of mics and rigs for different situations. It's hard enough with a single smaller amp and cab, never mind a big stack, or multiples. Some artists always mic their cabs, some never do, and some vary depending on the acoustics of the venue.<br /><br />Either way though, the PA system has to sound pleasing while reproducing those guitar sounds. Which means they CAN reproduce those same sounds, and if they can reproduce those sounds when sent them from the PA amp, they can be made to make them in the first place.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>The dirty little secret of rock and roll?</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>It's really hard to get good natural sound, filling even a medium sized room, out of just a big amp and cab on stage. Most of the time, most performers (and importantly, most sound engineers), in most venues, don't even try.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>On stage, amp stacks aren't for sound... They're for the show... the spectacle.<br /> </i><i><br /></i><i>In a bigger venue, most of the time the artists don't even use ONE of the stacks for their OWN audio, using floor monitors or in ear monitors (like very high end earbuds, hooked into their wireless system, and letting them hear their tone evenly no matter where they are on the stage, as well as hearing the other band members, and crew communications). </i><i><br /></i><i>At most, they'll have one stack miked up.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>To get proper sound out of a full stack, you need to use EIGHT mikes (which are damn near impossible to set up, and even harder to mix and EQ properly), and a big acoustic shield to protect the mikes from excess reverb, echo, delay, and phase effects, and from spill sound from the house and the rest of the band; which screws up the visual look they're going for.</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Here's another "secret" for you... A lot of the time, if you see an artist with big stacks out there on stage, and they want that "real stack sound"; the stacks you see on stage will actually all be unpowered dummies. Their REAL amp and cab will actually be back stage, behind noise insulation, properly miked up, mixed with the DI and turned way down, using only a few watts of power so as to not overload the mics.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>This is also how Brian May, The Edge, and other guitarists that like to use lower powered classic amps, particularly combo amps like the Vox AC30; get their preferred tone, while filling a huge concert venue with sound.</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>If the artist wants a heavy feedback sound, they'll use a feedback or screamer effect. Either that, or they'll have a single amp with the gain turned all the way up, and a 2x12 floor monitor, or a single 4x12 cab on a riser to bring it to guitar height, that they'll walk up to for natural feedback.</i>&nbsp;<i>Even then, it will be miked, and mixed in the board, to go out to the in ears and PA.&nbsp;</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Often, their sound guy will be watching for cues, and when they want the feedback, they'll turn that one amps mix up on the PA, and then turn it down afterwards so they don't get unwanted feedback, noise, and distortion.&nbsp;</i></blockquote><br />Now, that doesn't mean the guitar cab doesn't sound good, and may in fact sound much better than a direct clean and "dry" signal from a preamp or DI box (if it's a good amp and cab, it almost certainly will). The guitar cab will be specifically tuned to accentuate the pleasing sounds and dampen the displeasing sounds, that a guitar and amp can make.<br /><br />That however, is why most guitar specific DI boxes, modelers and the like, have something called "cab emulation", and many have "amp emulation" of specific amp types (and of course the whole point of modelers is that they do this).<br /><br />These are circuits (or digital models) that when played through a clean and neutral speaker (or directly into a mixer or recording interface), emulate the way a well known amp and/or cabinet (like a marshall JCM800 through a 4x12, vox AC30, or Fender 2x12 combo... those are the most common emulations by far), will shape the tone of the guitar.<br /><br />This is also why you have equalizers in any preamp, amp (and most amps with a DI can switch between equalized "wet" sound, and unequalized "dry" sound), modeler, mixer, and PA rig.<br /><br />But using a PA speaker as a cab, you don't have to worry about that. We're not talking about playing wet or dry through a PA. What we're talking about is playing through your full sound chain, right up to the final drive stage.<br /><div><br />In fact... give me $300 to get a half decent 2x12" 3 way PA speaker, and I guarantee I'll blow your $600 2x12" Fender cab, clean off the stage. <br /><br />I know where I can get a 30hz 101db 2x15 4 way pa speaker for $300 (with eminence drivers even). That's stackable with a 101db 2x12 4 way in the same form factor also for $300. &nbsp;That's $600, in two cabs that collectively weigh in, and size up, just a bit bigger than Marshall 4x12. But sonically they would just blow the $1200 Marshall away. In fact, I'm certain they'd absolutely kill a full dual 4x12 stack costing $2500. Same amp, just two PA speakers instead of two cabs.<br /><br />Between your pre-amp and amp (all guitar amps have a pre-amp. It's what makes them guitar amps rather than just power amps), amp and cab modeling or emulation, and proper equalization; you can get a good PA speaker to sound as good or better than an actual guitar cab of the same size, price, and quality (though not necessarily exactly the same as a specific amp and cab); and generally better than all but the very best cabs.&nbsp;</div>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-66877584145216153472015-02-12T08:45:00.001-05:002015-02-12T08:50:11.006-05:00Lucky Man BluesThere are many ways that I was lucky growing up.<br /><br />My house was always full of music, as was my grandparents house (where I lived from 2 to 5, and then summers until I was 16).<br /><br />My mother and grandfather both prefered to work with music on when they could, and my aunts and uncles were all music nuts.<br /><br />Papa loved music from classical, to 30s through 60s swing and jazz and pop standards, to Elvis, to show tunes (he and my grandmother both loved the classic musicals), to classic country, and even outlaw country (I first heard Waylon Jennings in my grandfathers home office). Of course, he also liked "beautiful music"... but nobody's perfect.<br /><br />My mother loved classic rock, jazz vocals, R&amp;B and soul. I heard Nina Simone, and Santana, and 70's Michael Jackson from my mother. She would play tapes of her favorites over and over, learning the vocals.<br /><br />My dad was a guitar player and singer too, still is... Classic rock and blues. He even played at their wedding. Though I didn't see him from the age of 5 'til I was 20... the influence was still there (and he and I sing a lot a like).<br /><br />Growing up, my mothers sisters and brothers were more like my older sisters and brothers. From them I learned to love hard rock, and punk, and folk, and "alternative" before it was labeled alternative. Husker Du, the Afghan Whigs, the Hoodoo Gurus, Stiff Little Fingers, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Cockburn, the Lemonheads, the Pixies, the Mighty Mighty Bosstones...<br /><br />We had family friends who were in the music business, concert promoters, managers, music producers. My grandfather's law firm had a lot of musicians and bands as clients.<br /><br />I started vocal instruction at age 5. Was in a childrens performing chorus at age 8, and in choral competitions from age 13 through high school. I started music theory and appreciation classes at 12, learning piano and drums. I got my first guitar at 13, and my first bass a couple years later.<br /><br />I have had a life completely full of music. I can't really imagine being otherwise. I've been a very lucky man.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-86235956915516427312015-02-06T16:52:00.001-05:002015-02-06T16:56:44.780-05:00Sons, and Fathers, and Bleeding FingersAs I was finishing college, my father, whom I hadn't seen or heard from for 15 years (most of which time he was in prison) contacted me.<br /><br />He had been out of prison a couple years, and was now off of parole and a free man... And he wanted to know... Would I please come and visit him, because he loved me, and missed me, and wanted to be a part of my life again.<br /><br />So that Christmas, I packed up and flew back to Boston... And &nbsp;suddenly, I had a father again.<br /><br />That was... Well... I can't exactly put it into words... I can just tell you that family is extremely important to me.<br /><br />After reconnecting, one of the first things my father and I bonded over.. and very deeply so... was our love of music. In particular our mutual love of the blues, soul, classic and hard rock, and great guitar work. After all, we both played guitar and sang (he even played and sang at my parents wedding). <br /><br />At that point though, I didn't have any guitars (my guitars had all burned in my mothers house, when my brother burned the top two floors down, on my 19th birthday). <br /><br />He did though... <br /><br />One particular guitar, and amp, that he had wanted since they'd been introduced.<br /><br />It was a 1993 Fender Stratocaster Ultra. It had a maple neck, ebony fingerboard, lace sensors, and a custom fit gold tweed hard case, which matched the tweed of the Blues Deluxe amp wanted to go with it.<br /><br />So he searched, and called in favors, and pestered friends and shopkeepers, and drove a couple hundred miles... and finally he found them, and bought them as a present to himself. <br /><br />The one he found was in a special color, a deep metallic pearl blue (they had to stop using it because of changes in environmental regulation. They only ever made 400 guitars in that color), that looked great with the Ultra neck, pickguard, and hardware.<br /><br /><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Unfortunately this isn't the guitar, I don't have any pics, but it's similar:</span></i><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-u-0SIv5koRw/VNU2jwPNjSI/AAAAAAAAF6s/5xYTjzows6w/s1600/BlueBurstTopUltra.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-u-0SIv5koRw/VNU2jwPNjSI/AAAAAAAAF6s/5xYTjzows6w/s1600/BlueBurstTopUltra.jpg" /></a></div><br />He loved that guitar, and he played the hell out of it...His fingers bled on that guitar... It was the guitar he wanted to keep for the rest of his life; his single most prized possession.<br /><br />Until his guitar playing son came back to him... and didn't have a guitar to play.<br /><br />So... to celebrate our first Christmas together since I was a little kid, he gave me a special Christmas gift: &nbsp;His guitar.<br /><br />His fingers had bled on that guitar... the guitar he wanted more than any other... and he wanted me to have it.<br /><br />It was the best Christmas present I'd ever had... Both the guitar, and the meaning of it.. Having a father again... getting my family back...<br /><br />Again... I can't put into words...<br /><br />I truly loved that guitar. It was one of the few possessions I actually gave a damn about. My fingers bled on that guitar.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I left it in storage in the U.S. (along with most of what I owned) when I moved to Ireland (originally I was going to send for them later, but my first marriage split, and I decided to leave the stuff in storage a while... which ended up being 3 years).&nbsp;I say unfortunately, because while I was in Ireland, even though I prepaid a year at a time; the storage company was purchased, and the new owners mistakenly auctioned all of my possessions, without notifying me.<br /><br />It was the second time I'd lost all my guitars. I was so devastated, that it was actually years before I picked up a guitar again. Not until my wife bought me one in fact, for our first Christmas together as a family.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Fast forward...</span></b><br /><br />15 years later... 15 years with my father, after 15 years without him;&nbsp;I was looking to get my father a rather special Christmas present, to celebrate that.<br /><br />I knew what it had to be of course: A guitar... But not just any guitar, it had to be exactly the right guitar.<br /><br />I wasn't just trying to be cute and clever... It was important.<br /><br />So,&nbsp;I spent that entire year searching for exactly the right guitar. Late in the year, I found it. <br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Oh boy did I find it...&nbsp;</span></b><br /><br />What I found, was an extremely rare, very limited production, 100% perfect mint unplayed condition, vintage, masterbuilt select (meaning hand built, from hand selected special woods), Strat Ultra.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Now... from here until the last bit, I'm gonna get all guitar crazy for a bit, and obsess over the tiny details of wood and metal and electricity and the like, that go into making a guitar. If that's not your thing, feel free to skip ahead to "it was a beautiful thing".</i></blockquote><br />The Ultra was a limited production model to begin with, as the absolute top of Fenders Stratocaster line from 1988 to 1997. On top of that, this was a custom shop masterbuilt select guitar; hand built by one of their master luthiers (who signs the heel of neck, the underside of the pickguard, and in the trem cavity; so you know it's all the original parts as they built them).<br /><br />Basically, with a masterbuilt select guitar, the luthiers see an interesting piece of wood, or they have a special idea for what might make an interesting guitar. Then they hand pick the special wood and parts (or they modify or custom fabricate parts if they need to), and hand build and finish, one or more guitars from it (usually from one to four, sometimes as much as ten, but that's very rare).<br /><br />The guitar has a one piece AAA flamed and quilted maple body (not just a top and back plate, the whole body), in a special hand tinted and finished custom sunburst on both top and back. It's kinda like the antique sunburst, but with a bit of dark reddish brown blending into the brown and amber, and the amber has a more neutral darker maple tone, rather than a more yellow tone. Also, it goes dark but not black or opaque on the sides. All of which is specifically to show off the figured body better (you can see the figure on the sides straight through the wood to the back). <br /><br />The chatoyance of this wood, in this finish, with this figure, is just gorgeous. The guitar looks like it's on fire, and the flames are coming out at you out of the depths of the wood.<br /><br />The neck is a special extra thin, compound contoured profile, in AAA flame figured maple, with AAA figured headstock plate matching the body, an inlaid abalone Fender logo, a compound radius ebony fretboard with superjumbo frets, abalone inlays and sidemarkers, roller bearing string nut, and locking tuners. The neck also has a special truss rod system (to prevent both twist and bow, and to bias the relief from bass to treble without warping the neck), and the Fender neck angle adjustment system.<br /><br />The guitar has a special shielded pickguard with four special lace sensors (two of them wired together as a humbucker in the bridge position, and two different tonal spec in the neck and center), special shielded wiring and control options including the Fender super switch with S1 system (meaning you can select any combination of pickups, including any single, two, three, or all four at once,; or wiring the neck and middle together as humbuckers to get double humbucker output), built in 3 band EQ (cut and boost for bass, mid, and treble are hidden in the original tone controls), phasing, coil tapping, and midboost, It also has a special stabilized two point tremolo, with graphite impregnated saddles. It even has special strap pins (for a straplock system). Finally, there's additional matching abalone inlay in the pickguard and control knobs (nothing gaudy, just picking out the text and a couple little accents).<br /><br />Oh and it has it's own custom fit special hard case, lined in blue velvet, covered in black tolex; with real leather ends, straps, and handles; and chrome hardware and fittings.<br /><br />Basically, this was the finest Stratocaster Fender could make in their custom shop that year, with every possible option.<br /><br />As near as I can tell, it is the only guitar Fender ever built in that exact configuration, one of only 4 in that select series, and one of only 10 guitars hand built by that master luthier that year.<br /><br />A standard Strat Ultra, runs $1100 to $3500, depending on the year, finish, the options, whether the case was with it etc...<br /><br />This guitar, originally would have cost about $9,500 (about $15,000 today).<br /><br />Today, it's probably, conservatively, worth about $8500; priced for a quick sale to a knowledgable buyer.<br /><br />The guitar would be worth a LOT more, except that the lace sensor pickups have an undeserved, and undesirable, reputation.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i><b><span style="color: red;">An aside... a rant about pickups...</span></b></i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i><br /></i><i>For some strange reason, many people don't like how clean and "quiet" lace sensors are...&nbsp;</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>...or at least they THINK they don't, based on what they've read. Most folks have no idea what lace sensors sound like. Even when they try a guitar with them, they don't know how to get the sound they want out of them. The "collective wisdom" says they're "cold", so people think they're cold.&nbsp;</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Lace sensors are very high output, and get very loud, with ultraclear and even response across the entire dynamic range and sweep of bass, mid, and treble frequencies, and almost no noise, distortion, or hum (unlike conventional pickups, which do have noise, distortion, hum -- even humbuckers -- and very uneven frequency response).&nbsp;</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Critically, lace sensors don't get dirty, hum, or distort (or spike impedance, or have weird inductance or microphonic issues, or many of the other normal problems of conventional pickups), through a clean amp, even at very high volume.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>You also get better sustain, better overall tonal clarity and definition (clearer chording and soloing, less "mud"), higher overall dynamic range, and higher clean output &nbsp;(for a given volume and tone setting, and given force on the strings) out of a lace sensor, than a conventional pickup.&nbsp;</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>This is a GOOD thing, because now YOU have total control over your tone. You decide how you want to sound, the limitations of your pickups or amplifier don't decide for you.</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>But... Some people think they sound "cold" or "flat", and want a "dirtier" or "crunchier" tone by default.<br /> </i><i><br /></i><i>Lace sensors don't actually sound cold, or dead, or flat, at all by the way. How they sound, is neutral, by default. In fact, they can sound however you want them to, depending on which one you choose (there are several different versions with different base tonal qualities), which ones you switch in, how you set your tone EQ, and how you set your amp (and your effects if any).</i>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>You can get warmth, you can get heat, you can get jangle, you can get burble, you can get scream, you can get growl... But you'll never get dirty, or noisy,or distorted in way you don't want to, at times you don't want.</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Of course, being able to get any tone you want from them, means that you actually have to know how to get the tone you want from them. To be aware of how your tone is created and shaped and changed, as part of your playing. Most don't want to bother.&nbsp;</i></blockquote><br /><br />If the guitar had been originally built with the custom shop hand wound pickups instead of the custom shop special lace sensors, it would be worth north of $12,500... between $15,000 and $20,000 to the right buyer, looking for the work of that particular master luthier (who has now retired).<br /><br />I paid $1150, plus shipping.<br /><br />On ebay...<br /><br />The guy had NO CLUE what he had. He knew it was an Ultra, but he had no idea about the rest. He was the guitar guy for a pawnbroker who had bought out the inventory of a high end music store when the owner died.<br /><br />I recognized what it was from the pictures and the posted details, and bid, fervently hoping that no-one else would know what they were bidding on. They didn't. There were other bidders, but no-one else bid over the reserve. I sweated it out until the auction was up, and no-one outbid me.<br /><br />Now... normally, I would tell the seller if they had a much more valuable item than they knew they had, just as a matter of ethics... But this wasn't another player, this was a professional guitar seller, clearing out an estate sale. My conscience was clear.<br /><br />After I got the guitar, it was clear it had never been played, or at least not enough to leave the slightest mark. It was perfect, and I was pretty sure it was as special as I was hoping.<br /><br />I checked the signatures under the tremolo plate and pickguard (don't take a neck off unless you have to; too much potential for damage), and confirmed the provenance with Fender (as well as I could anyway. Fender doesn't provide a complete detailed history or build sheet for non-original purchasers. I was able to get more by internet research and the websites of some Fender fanatics).<br /><br />It was what I thought it was from the description... and more. The level of detail and workmanship on this guitar is just staggering, and only half was in the auction description).<br /><br /><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Unfortunately this isn't the guitar, I don't have any pics, but it's similar:</span></i><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1BSihuyP8AE/VNU3PWxV4gI/AAAAAAAAF60/RMl55BRQL0U/s1600/Ultra2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1BSihuyP8AE/VNU3PWxV4gI/AAAAAAAAF60/RMl55BRQL0U/s1600/Ultra2.jpg" height="426" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">It was a beautiful thing...</span></b><br /><br />More importantly, it PLAYED. I played it through my Fender 2x12, and it was a beautiful thing. Weight, balance, action, tone, feel... It's an amazing instrument.<br /><br />I played it, and I loved it, and my fingers bled on that guitar.<br /><br />Most importantly, I was able to give my dad the best Christmas present I could ever have given him.<br /><br />I managed to make my father cry with happiness.<br /><br />I am in no way joking, when I say I consider that a major achievement in my life, and one of the best things I have ever done.<br /><br />It's not just the guitar... It's what it meant.<br /><br />My dad played that guitar... that special guitar that we both spent so much time wanting, and searching for... He played it, and he loved it, and his fingers bled on it.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">So here we are today...&nbsp;</span></b><br /><br />A little while ago, I was sitting on my bed, playing my six string bass guitar, when my almost two year old son came into the room because he heard me playing. <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>I should mention at this point, that my father is Chris the Third, I'm Chris the fourth, and the boy is Chris the fifth.&nbsp;</i></blockquote>The boy smiled and ran straight over and climbed up to me, then climbed up and over my arm and wormed his way in between me and the instrument... Then reached down and started trying to play it with daddy.<br /><br />And I thought about all of this... this... and I cried with happiness.<br /><br />My father and I agree: The guitar stays in the family. My father played it... His blood is in it. I played it... My blood is in it. I hope to God that some day my son will play it, and his blood will be in it, and his son...<br /><br />S'cuse me... It's a bit dusty in here at the moment. I think I have something in my eye.. s'a little blurry.<br /><br />I think I'll go play some guitar with my son.<br /><br />Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-73228923248505991552015-01-30T17:55:00.002-05:002015-01-30T18:03:18.495-05:00Why not use a TV as a monitor?So, large screen LED backlit LCD televisions are amazing. They look great, and they've become quite affordable over the past few years.<br /><br />Large computer monitors on the other hand, are still really expensive... Though the definition of "large" has changed over the past ten years from 17" to 19" to 21" to 24", to 27", and for the last couple years has topped out in the range of 30"-32". That's about the most people can comfortably fit on their desktop, and still be able to see the screen edge to edge without turning their heads.<br /><br />Most people who want more screen area, just get two 24" monitors, because they don't need to look at a single big high resolution thing very much. Those who do, buy the 27" to 32" monitors bite the bullet, and pay the extra money.<br /><br />So, since 32" tv's are so cheap, and so great, why not just buy one of those, or even a 37" or 40" etc... for a big monitor?<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Yeah... why not use a flat screen TV as a monitor?</span></b><br /><br />At first glance, it makes sense, and for some people in some applications, it absolutely does. But, there are a number of factors you need to take into account.<br /><br />First, the sharpness, contrast ratio, luminance, and response time, &nbsp;are generally considerably better on decent computer monitors than on most televisions.<br /><br />Those qualities are expensive, and get more so as screen size goes up. They're expensive on TV's as well, but to show a good HDTV image, you don't need as good a screen (technically a display panel).<br /><br />Also, the image processing, color gamut, panel design and the like, are generally different between monitors and televisions.<br /><br />Computer monitors are designed to display text and graphics very precisely but not necessarily naturally. PC monitors panels and image processing are designed to make text look very clear, readable, and high contrast, without being oversharp, especially black text on white backgrounds. Monitors (at least higher quality ones) are also generally designed to display a much broader range of colors, more accurately (meaning with less bias or distortion, at consistent brightness and contrast, across the whole panel. Better quality monitors can also be color, contrast, and brightness corrected and calibrated, and can adjust the display in ways to correct common computer display issues. Of course, how well they actually manage to do those is another question).<br /><br />Televisions generally have panels and image processing designed to make live video and film images, especially fast moving images, more natural looking. They are also designed to make bright objects against a dark background look better, without popping or ghosting, and with a "natural" appearing color, softness, and motion blur. They also have different screen adjustments to address issues typical to HD video signals rather than computer display signals (overscan, position correction, aspect ratio etc...).<br /><br />This by the way is one reason why professional video production monitors are much more expensive than normal televisions. They are designed with all of the capabilities of the best quality PC monitors, AND the best televisions, plus additional inputs, image controls, and correction and calibration capabilities (as well as some other things like refresh and color/refresh/channel sync lock).<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Isn't 1080p good enough?</span></b><br /><br />The issue isn't resolution... 1080p is good enough... at the right screen size and viewing distance. <br /><br />The issue is our vision, contrast, pixel size, and viewing distance. <br /><br />PC monitors are designed be looked at closely, from close distances. TV's are designed to be watched from farther away, looking at the whole screen at once.<br /><br />A 1920x1080 screen at 50" vs a 1920x1080 screen at 24" have VASTLY different PPI (pixel per inch). The big screen will be 44ppi and the smaller screen will be 92ppi.<br /><br />My phone has a 5.1" 1920x1080 screen at &nbsp;432ppi.<br /><br />That's a .6mm, a .28mm and a 0.06mm pixel size respectively.<br /><br />Whether a particular pixel count is acceptable or not, depends on how far away your eyes are from the screen.<br /><br />The average human can see an individual .6mm pixel in a contrasting field (one white pixel on black) from appx 78", a .28mm pixel from 37" and a 0.06mm pixel from about 8".<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>You can get these numbers for yourself for any screen size here: <a href="https://www.sven.de/dpi/">https://www.sven.de/dpi/</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;and here:&nbsp;<a href="http://isthisretina.com/">http://isthisretina.com/</a></i></blockquote><b><span style="color: red;"><br />So what's the difference and what's the damage?</span></b><br /><br />In the real world, you don't need super high quality, ultra contrast, ultra high pixel densityetc... for general computing. A 24" 1080p screen looks just fine for most things, including video, most gaming, and small text.<br /><br />Cheaper 1080p screens in the the 32" size range are now available for $250 or so. They look fine for displaying HDTV. Unfortunately look like crap when used as computer monitors from typical chair to screen distances. The text can be difficult to read, window edges look weird, games look weird, colors don't look right, black and white look like grey and brighter grey (usually with some blue, green, or yellow mixed in).<br /><br />That said, they're not entirely unusable, and for video, large text, status displays etc... they're fine for that. They're also fine at 6 feet away. A slightly more expensive TV in the same size range may also have more controls and options so you can calibrate and compensate and make it look better.<br /><br />30" to 32" computer monitors start at twice that (for 1080p screens), and go up into the $5,000 range (for 4k 4096x2160). They also look great at typical chair to screen distances for anything but small text (at 1080p). <br /><br />For small text, even 27" is iffy at 1080p. For a 27-32" you really want something like 2048x1152, 2048x1536 or 2560x1440, or go to a QHD/4k.<br /><br />Professional video production monitors in the 30-32" range on the other hand START at around $5,000 for 1080p, and go into the $30,000 range for 4k. They look amazing at any distance (once you get used to a professional video screen, other screen look like crap in comparison).<br /><br />If there weren't good reason for it, no-one would spend that extra money.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-73201395944989277392015-01-07T11:27:00.003-05:002015-01-07T13:53:00.324-05:00Meaning and UnderstandingIn order to communicate usefully and meaningfully (is anything less really communication?), one must be able to understand what others say, and they must be able to understand what you say.<br /><br />More importantly, you absolutely must understand what they MEAN.<br /><br />Obvious yes?<br /><br /><b>So then why are so many people attempting to make it so hard for others to understand them?</b><br /><br />In order to communicate with someone, you must have shared meaning with them.<br /><br />You must have shared definitions, shared context, shared points of reference; or you must be able to create these things, in your interactions with them.<br /><br />You must be able to relate things in your own life and experience, to similar things in theirs, and be able to explain the differences (you must be able to share idiom and to analogize).<br /><br />Further, you have to know where you have shared meaning, and where you don't. Otherwise you might say one thing, and they'll understand (or misunderstand), something else entirely.<br /><br />It's a case of not being able to ask the right questions, because you don't know, what you don't know.<br /><br />I am a member of several different subcultures, where individuality, the "unusual", the extreme, the outliers... are "common", even celebrated.<br /><br />However, these are also subcultures which tend to infinitesimalize relatively small differences. To create terminology for them. To inhabit them, wrap identities around them, and unfortunately too often factionalize around them (look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences">"the narcissism of small differences"</a>)<br /><br />For all these reasons, and many more, it is especially important that we be able to communicate clearly. That when we say things of significance, we are operating with a set of shared definitions and assumptions. That we have shared meaning, around our actions and interactions.<br /><br />The potential for hurt or harm is so great, the need for clarity is all the greater.<br /><br />The difficulty is, often, our cultural assumptions are transparent to us; and utterly alien to others outside of our culture (or subculture).<br /><br />In most subcultures, "Good morning" is a friendly greeting, and "Hey, fuck you" is a horrible insult.<br /><br /><b>MOST subcultures, but not all...</b><br /><br />"Hey, fuck you", IS a warm friendly greeting, in some subcultures...<br /><br />The military, commercial kitchens, athletic fields, construction sites... Really anyplace where people (mostly guys) "busting each others balls" is part of the culture of comradeship and respect.<br /><br />It's when the guys DON'T insult you, screw with you, bust your balls etc... that they are expressing their dislike or lack of respect for you. It means they don't care enough to bother, don't respect you enough, or don't think you can take it.<br /><br />You wouldn't BELIEVE some of the insults my friends and I have for each other... never mind the dynamic between older and younger brothers...<br /><br />But... knowing that, and being able to deal with that, depends on shared cultural understanding, and therefore having shared meaning and context.<br /><br />If you're a polite upper middle class American woman, and you're suddenly dropped into a world, where people express respect and affection for each other by calling each other "bitch", "whore", "faggot" (certain gay subcultures for example)... You're probably going to be appalled, you will likely be offended, and you're certainly going to have a hard time understanding what is being communicated, and communicating in return.<br /><br />Until you develop shared meaning and context.<br /><br />This is something that an unfortunate number of folks in "alternative lifestyle communities" seem to miss... (and others as well, I'm just using this as a convenient and obvious example).<br /><br />They seem to carry around the assumption that somehow, everyone is supposed to understand their exact individual and specific meaning for something, which may mean something entirely different to someone else... and they get offended when you don't.<br /><br />There are these terms, that they make up entirely, or use differently from everyone else; and yet they seem to believe they have the right to be offended when others don't understand or "respect", their personal meaning or usage... and to force other people to use it while attempting to communicate with them (or worse, to refuse to attempt to communicate with anyone, unless the other party already understands their preferred usage).<br /><br />Then of course there are those who, in reaction to the type of person I describe above, and in the attempt to not give offense; account for EVERY POSSIBLE OPTION, COMBINATION, OR VARIANT, IN EVERYTHING THEY SAY...<br /><br /><b>Can you tell that irritates me... </b><br /><br />It's a terrific irritation, and waste of time, and just plain destructive to real communication and understanding.<br /><br />This is one of the problems I have with people who keep trying to find infinitely small divisions of categorization for their "identity", or their gender, or their sexuality, or their ideology or any other damn thing; particularly those who get offended if you don't use, or don't understand, their preferred term for their self identification.<br /><br />Fine, you may want to call yourself "queer oriented transgenderflexiblequestioning blondie"... <br /><br />...but unless someone has direct personal knowledge of the multiple subcultures I drew those descriptions from, and the tiny shades of difference between multiple terms, no-one is going to have the slightest clue what you are on about. You're just going to irritate them, and make communication with them more difficult.<br /><br />And sorry, no, everyone does not have an obligation to "respect your choices and preferences".<br /><br />Neither your mere existence, nor your particular preferences, create any obligation for me to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, except not trespass on your fundamental rights. Everything else is optional, and a matter of cultural practice and social convention.<br /><br />If you are explicitly and deliberately using language, terminology, and definitions, outside of cultural practice and social convention... How exactly is anyone supposed to know what to do, how to treat you, what to call you etc... ?<br /><br />One shouldn't need to be an Oxford don of linguistics and semiotics, to understand what it is you wish to be called, what your interests and hobbies and preferences are, what you don't like etc...<br /><br /><b>How about this...</b><br /><br />Those of you who are so concerned about others getting your "label" wrong?<br /><br />Is your own sense of self worth, and identity, so weak, that it cannot tolerate others not uniquely and specifically acknowledging and reinforcing it?<br /><br />How about you like yourself, respect yourself, and respect others enough; to not give a damn about labels and terminology, except as a way of facilitating meaningful communication and understanding?<br /><br />How about you try not getting offended, and instead try to help other people understand you better... and try to understand them better?<br /><br />Labels CAN be important, to facilitate communication, to speed things up, and to reduce the potential for misunderstanding... but you know what's more important? Shared meaning, shared context, and shared understanding.<br /><br />In that same vein, definitions ARE important. Critical in fact.<br /><br />The potential for harm inherent in misunderstandings in this world... It's just too great, to make the risks even higher through miscommunication and misunderstanding.<br /><br />If you don't know the definition of an important point, clearly and completely, it's absolutely critical you ask.<br /><br />If the meaning of an important point is ambiguous, or there are multiple equally valid meanings... particularly if they are contradictory; it is critical to reach shared understanding and clarity.<br /><br />When the meaning of a word, phrase, term etc... is well understood in a particular subculture; it's incumbent on you to understand and use that definition, when dealing with members of that subculture, in their "own house". When dealing with those outside your particular subculture, you cannot expect them to automatically know and use your own specific definitions and meanings, which are different from their own.<br /><br /><b>Or is that just too hard?</b>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-50207058754218773472015-01-03T05:30:00.001-05:002015-01-03T05:33:25.307-05:00The Minimum Wage LieWhen “progressives” say “the minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation”, they're lying.<br /><br />Not shading, the truth, exaggerating, or interpreting things differently… they are flat out lying.<br /><br />… And what’s more, the ones who made up the lie in the first place, know they're lying (the rest mostly just parrot what they’ve been told).<br /><br /><b>What exactly would “keeping up with inflation” mean?</b><br /><br />The minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour since 2009.<br /><br />In 1938, when the federal minimum wage was established, it was $0.25 an hour. In constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) that’s $4.19 as of 2014.<br /><br />So, not only has the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it’s nearly doubled it.<br /><br /><b>Ok.. well what about more recently?</b><br /><br />Minimum wage 15 years ago in 2000: $5.15, or $7.06 in constant dollars<br /><br />Minimum wage 20 years ago in 1995: $4.25, or $6.59 in constant dollars.<br /><br />Minimum wage 25 years ago in 1990: $3.80, or $6.87 in constant dollars.<br /><br />Minimum wage 30 years ago in 1985: $3.30, or $7.25 in constant dollars.<br /><br /><b>Funny… that’s exactly what it is today… How shocking.</b><br /><br />So, for 30 years, the minimum wage has not only kept up with inflation, for most of that time it’s been ahead of it.<br /><br /><b>So, how are they lying?</b><br /><br />The way “progressives” claim minimum wage hasn’t been “keeping up with inflation”, is by comparing today, with the highest level it has ever been; almost 50 years ago, in 1968, when the minimum wage went to $1.60 an hour ($10.86 in constant dollars).<br /><br /><b>This was a statistical anomaly.</b><br /><br />There’s a long and loathsome tradition of lying with statistical anomalies.<br /><br />At $1.60 an hour, the minimum wage in 1968 was a huge 20% spike from what it had been just 3 years before in ’65, more than 40% above what it had been in 1960, and nearly double what it had been 12 years before in 1956 when politicians started throwing minimum wage increases faster and bigger (again, all in constant dollar terms. The minimum wage at the beginning of 1956 was about $6.30 in constant dollars)<br /><br />In constant dollar terms, the minimum wage today, is about the same as it was in 1962 (and as I showed above, 1985).<br /><br />It just so happens that from 1948 to 1968 we had the single largest wealth expansion over 20 years, seen in the history of the nation (about 5-8% annual growth)… Which then crashed hard starting at the end of ’68.<br /><br />From 1968 to 1984, the U.S. had 16 years of the worst inflation we ever saw, and the purchasing power of ALL wages fell significantly, as wages failed to come even close to keeping up with inflation (we saw 13.5% inflation in 1980 alone, which is about what we see every 4 years today).<br /><br />It took until 1988 for real wages to climb back to their 1968 constant dollar level, because we were in a 20 year long inflationary recession, complicated by two oil shocks and a stock market crash (actually a couple, but ’87 was the biggest one since ’29).<br /><br />However, the minimum wage was boosted significantly in that time period, far more than other wages rose, and stayed above the 1962 water mark until the end of that high inflationary period in 1984, declining slightly until 1992, then spiking and declining again until 1997 etc… etc…<br /><br />By the by… household income in 1968? appx. $7,700, which is about the same as today in constant dollar terms… About $51,0000 (about 8% more than it was in 1967, at $47k). Which is almost exactly what it was in 1988 as well. Household income peaked in 1999 and 2007 at around $55,000, and troughed in 1975 at around $45,000<br /><br />Of course, income was on a massive upswing from 1948 to 1968 (and in fact had been on a massive upswing overall since 1896 with the exception of 1929 through 1936). In 1941 household income was about $1500 ($24,000 constant), in 1948 $3,800 ($37,000 constant).<br /><br />Like I said, it was the single greatest expansion in real income and wealth over a 20 year period, in American history.<br /><br /><b>1968 was a ridiculous historical anomaly… Not a baseline expectation.</b><br /><br />So, From 1964 to 1984, the minimum wage was jacked artificially high (proportionally far above median wage levels), and “progressives” chose to cherry pick the absolute peak in 1968 from that part of the dataset, in order to sell the lie.<br /><br /><b>A living wage?</b><br /><br />As to the minimum wage not being a living wage… No, of course its not. It never was, its not supposed to be, and it never should be.<br /><br />The minimum wage is intended to be for part time, seasonal workers, entry level workers, and working students.<br /><br />Only about 4% of all workers earn the minimum wage, and less than 2% of full time workers earn the minimum wage.<br /><br />Minimum wage is what you pay people whose labor isn’t worth more than that. Otherwise everyone would make minimum wage. But since 98% of full time workers can get more than minimum wage, they do so.<br /><br /><b>What should the minimum wage be?</b><br /><br />Zero.<br /><br />Wait, won’t everyone become poor suddenly?<br /><br />No, of course not. Literally 98% of full time workers already get more than minimum wage. If we abolished the minimum wage, most of them wouldn’t suddenly be paid nothing.<br /><br />Wages should be whatever someone is willing to work for. If you’re willing to work for $1, and someone else isn’t, you get the job. On the other hand, if an employer is offering $10 and no-one is willing to take the job for that, they need to offer $11, or $12, or whatever minimum wage someone is willing to take.<br /><br />If you don’t want to work for $7.25 an hour, don’t take the job. If nobody offers you more than that, too bad, but that’s all your labor is worth.<br /><br />If you are willing to work for someone for $7.00, and they’re willing to pay you $7.00, what right does some “progressive” have to tell either of you, that you can’t work for that much?<br /><br />No-one is “exploiting the workers”, if those workers took the jobs voluntarily, and show up for work voluntarily… If all you can find is a job for less than what you want to work for, you’re not being exploited, THAT’S ALL YOUR LABOR IS WORTH TO THOSE EMPLOYERS.<br /><br />You may think your labor worth more, but things aren’t worth what you want them to be worth, they’re only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them.<br /><br /><b>But let’s be generous…</b><br /><br />All that said, I don’t think we’ll be able to eliminate the minimum wage any time soon.<br /><br />So, to those “progressives” who would say “let’s make the minimum wage keep up with inflation”, I agree wholeheartedly… Let’s make it $4.19.<br /><br /><i>Oh and if you don’t believe me on these numbers, they come from the department of labor, the department of commerce, and the census. If I’m lying to you, it’s with the governments own numbers… the same ones “progressives” are lying to you with.&nbsp;</i>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-76323675962879259172014-12-28T02:17:00.002-05:002014-12-28T02:17:53.567-05:00The Mongol and The CaravanIt has come to my attention that this old story is not universally known... so I'm sharing it now...<br /><br />A caravan is traveling down the road, and a lone mongol comes riding up, with his war cry and his sword, and orders the caravanners to stop...<br /><br />So they do.<br /><br />He waves his sword and shouts, and orders them all to line up in a row...<br /><br />So they do.<br /><br />He yells and waves his sword and orders them to give him all their gold and their goods...<br /><br />So they do.<br /><br />He yells and waves his sword, and he goes down to one end of the line, and orders the caravanner to get down on his knees and kneel over...<br /><br />So he does...<br /><br />...and the mongol chops the caravanners head off.<br /><br />He yells and waves his sword again, and orders the next caravanner to get on his knees and kneel over...<br /><br />So he does...<br /><br />....and the mongol chops the caravanners head off.<br /><br />Three guys down the line, a caravanner says to his friends "hey, there's only one of him and there's a dozen of us... let's rush him, he can only get one or two of us"<br /><br />The rest of the caravanners grab him, beat him up, and say "what are you crazy? You might make him angry".Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-57576781003870444622014-12-28T00:27:00.000-05:002014-12-28T00:27:17.583-05:00Gun Control and Electoral Math - The ScoreboardTwo years ago, I wrote a piece about electoral math and gun control, and how it was unlikely that we would have any serious national level gun control... and we have not (state level is another story unfortunately).<br /><br />In that, I included a list of democratic senators who were up for re-election this year, their position on gun control, and how "at risk" their seat was:<br /><br /><a href="http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2012/12/stupidity-politics-and-math.html">Stupidity, Politics, and Electoral Math</a><br /><br />So, now that we have the results of all of their elections, let's see what the last two years hath wrought among them:<br /><br />XX = Unelected (or resigned and replaced by Republican)<br /><br /><ol><li>XX - Alaska - Mark Begich - Very Pro Gun - very unsafe seat</li><li>XX - Arkansas - Mark Pryor - neutral - very unsafe seat</li><li>XX - Colorado - Mark Udall - neutral - not a safe seat</li><li>Delaware - Chris Coons - Very anti-gun - safe seat</li><li>Hawaii - UNKNOWN (special election to replace Daniel Inouye) - safe seat</li><li>Illinois - Dick Durbin - Very anti-gun - safe seat</li><li>XX - Iowa - Tom Harkin - Very anti-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up</li><li>XX - Louisiana - Mary Landrieu - neutral - very unsafe seat</li><li>Massachusetts - UNKNOWN (special election to replace John Kerry) - safe seat</li><li>Michigan - Carl Levin - very anti-gun - safe seat</li><li>Minnesota - Al Franken - very anti-gun - not a safe seat</li><li>XX - Montana - Max Baucus - very pro-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up</li><li>New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - very anti-gun - not a safe seat</li><li>New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg - very anti-gun - safe seat</li><li>New Mexico - Tom Udall - slightly anti-gun - safe seat</li><li>XX - North Carolina - Kay Hagan - very anti-gun - not a safe seat</li><li>Oregon - Jeff Merkley - very anti-gun - safe seat</li><li>Rhode Island - Jack Reed - very anti-gun - safe seat</li><li>XX - South Dakota - Tim Johnson - very pro-gun - very unsafe seat</li><li>Virginia - Mark Warner - very pro-gun - not a safe seat</li><li>XX - West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller - moderately anti-gun - very unsafe seat</li></ol><br />Lotta XX's there... 9 actually, out of 21 (10 of those 21 were considered safe seats, barely challenged by Republicans). Pretty much every anti-gun democrat that wasn't in a safe seat, except Shaheen and Franken.<br /><br />And THAT folks, is why we will not have any significant gun control on the national level any time soon.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-84929149369069355962014-12-22T17:37:00.000-05:002014-12-22T17:37:05.018-05:00The concept of "Cultural Appropriation" is both false and harmfulSo... The subject of "cultural appropriation" is coming up again, this time in regards to Iggy Azalea (born Amethyst Amelia Kelly), a young, extremely white, woman from Australia, who spent the last 7-ish years in the American south (mostly Atlanta); who raps in a "dirty south" style and accent, common to black rappers from Houston to Atlanta.<br /><br />If you're unfamiliar with the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation">"cultural appropriation" here's a definition (from wikipedia)</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Cultural appropriation is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of a different cultural group, specifically the use by cultural outsiders of a minority, oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements. It differs from acculturation or assimilation in that cultural "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements, taken from minority cultures by members of the dominant culture, and then using these elements outside of their original cultural context.</i></blockquote>Cultural appropriation, is often taken to be an act of racism, or at best racial insensitivity or intolerance, and in some cases, this can be a valid interpretation... SOME cases.<br /><br />To be clear, Iggy Azalea doesn't claim to be black, pretend to be black, doesn't "act black" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in her normal speech, accent, or mannerisms etc... She simply raps in a style commonly used by black rappers.<br /><span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: center;">Here's a video of her biggest hit to date "Fancy"(which hit number one earlier this year):</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/O-zpOMYRi0w" width="560"></iframe></div><br />Overall, there is outrage, among the easily outraged, that a white woman is "acting black", and that this is racist, disrespectful, and cultural appropriation. Also, that she is racially insensitive... even stupid... And that in general, she sucks.<br /><br />While I don't disagree that Iggy Azaelea sucks (actually, she's quite capable as a performer... she sucks on purpose, because it makes her... and her producers who really run the show... a lot of money), I hold the entire concept of "cultural appropriation" as a negative thing... or even as a thing... as not only false, but harmful.<br /><br />If it was done mockingly, or deceptively, sure... but we're talking about a performance style, not someone actually passing themselves off as a different race.<br /><br />More importantly, nothing is being STOLEN... You can't steal a cultural identity, or a performance style, or a form of artistic impression.<br /><br />She isn't copying anyone in particular, she isn't plagiarizing, and she isn't stopping black people from rapping in the same way, or making money doing so.<br /><br />No race "owns" any type or style of art. Just because someone of one race chooses to create or perform a style of art most commonly created or performed by another race, does not invalidate that art, or make it racist.<br /><br />To suggest otherwise is to suppress freedom of expression.<br /><br />It is also to suggest that Nat King Cole, Charlie Pride, and Harry Belafonte were illegitimate... or that the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds... Yeah, I could go on, about both sides... for hours.<br /><br />I personally sing blues and soul. I love the music, it moves me, and I sing it very passionately, and well, with a great deal of emotion and expression...<br /><br />If I preform this music as it is intended to be performed... or at all... Is that racist cultural appropriation?<br /><br />I love Indian, and Mexican food... is it racist cultural appropriation if I cook and serve these foods in a restaurant?<br /><br />Or is that just ridiculous?<br /><br />Now... to criticize Iggy Azalea for racial and cultural stupidity... I'm right there with you.<br /><br />But the whole cultural appropriation concept... or the notion that it somehow diminishes anyone or disrespects anyone... really needs to die.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-37835410826990735092014-12-20T04:47:00.001-05:002014-12-20T13:23:40.930-05:00"Never speak of this again"<p dir="ltr">Many years ago, I used to have a "stupid" charge for clients.</p><p dir="ltr">I was completely upfront about it, and what I called it. i would explain this to my clients as part of my rates before starting a gig, or going out on a service call...</p><p dir="ltr">If you make me do something really stupid and irritating, because you didn't do what you were told to do, didn't follow instructions, repeatedly made the same dumb mistake, or called me out because you did something really dumb (like unplug the machine and not notice for example)... You got the stupid charge... </p><p dir="ltr">Double my hourly rate, two hour minimum charge.</p><p dir="ltr">If said call, or call out, was after hours, on a weekend, or a holiday, you got my "special stupid" charge, FOUR times my hourly rate... Eight times if it was any two, twelve times if it was all three.</p><p dir="ltr">At the time I was charging $35 an hour for basic IT service, including travel time from my office to their site if more than 15 miles. </p><p dir="ltr">So, sure enough, holiday weekend comes around, and I get a call at 8 o'clock at night from a very wealthy client (a good sized business owner who had a serious home office that I set up, with full connectivity to his business)... Systems not working... Can't connect to the internet, can't print. And this guy has a 24/7 monthly service contract with me, with a 4 hour response (he paid for it gladly, and in general he was a very good client).</p><p dir="ltr">I go through an hour or so of troubleshooting, including specifically asking the guy to check all his power and interconnect cables, and look for power lights, and explaining to him my stupid charge. He was adamant he checked everything and he needed me to come out there (over an hours drive each way) right now... I explained to him that if when I got there it wasn't a covered service, he'd have to pay a minimum of six hours service (3 hours travel, 2 hour minimum service charge, one hour out of hours phone service) at the "special stupid" rate (over $2500 total)... He was absolutely certain.</p><p dir="ltr">So, I drive out there to the middle of nowhere mountains, walk into the office, look hard and sideways at the hardware for about 30 seconds from across the room....</p><p dir="ltr">...Walk over and plug the power strip the modem and router were plugged into, back into the wall.</p><p dir="ltr">Then I turn them both on, plug the phone line from the modem back into the wall, wait for them to come up, turn to the PC next to them, try to access the net and dial out, hear the modem dial out, and watch the browser start loading a page, and the printer start printing a test page.</p><p dir="ltr">I turned around again, and the guy was already standing there with a signed check in his hand.</p><p dir="ltr">From greeting him at the front door, to that moment, I hadn't said a word... I started to say "that's not necessary" (in fact I wasn't going to&nbsp; charge him the stupid charge at all, just the 6 hours).</p><p dir="ltr"> He interrupted me, handed me the check and said "Here's $5000... never speak of this to anyone".</p><p dir="ltr">... And I didn't, until after he passed on a few years later... </p>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-13770915565047744422014-12-11T20:40:00.000-05:002014-12-11T20:40:10.819-05:00The Great Pyramid<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px;">A few months back, I mentioned that I had found a "food", which had<a href="http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2014/04/entirely-off-hierarchy.html"> actually fallen completely off the Poretto Cheese Hierarchy</a>:<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S2wOsGo4lJE/U1qSStYTJgI/AAAAAAAAEhA/sSiooUjAKX8/s1600/FakeCheez.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S2wOsGo4lJE/U1qSStYTJgI/AAAAAAAAEhA/sSiooUjAKX8/s1600/FakeCheez.jpg" /></a><br /><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">""NO-MELT, imitation pasteurized process cheese product"<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">This is not cheese.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">This is not "pasteurized processes cheese food"<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">This is not even fake "Cheez!"<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">This isn't even "Kraft Macaroni and Cheez" fake cheez...<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">This is IMITATION fake cheez...<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">It has fallen entirely off the Poretto Cheese Hierarchy.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">But worse... they have taken the ONLY GOOD THING about fake cheese... that it melts really well for cheeseburgers and grilled cheese sandwiches...<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">AND MADE IT NO-MELT!<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">What exactly is the point of this product? Because it is clearly not intended for human consumption."</blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;"><br />Now unfortunately, Fran Poretto had taken down his original blog, so I wasn't able to post the hierarchy in response to reader inquiries. However, I wrote Fran personally, and he mentioned that he reposted it on a new site.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">I have reproduced it here:</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;"><b><a href="http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-great-pyramid-of-cheese.html">The Great Pyramid of Cheese - Francis Poretto</a></b></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;"><span style="line-height: 19.3199996948242px;"><br /></span></div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;"><span style="line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">"On one evening not too long ago, a friend of mine, who has an extensive extended family, was dining with most of them. Included were several pre-teens. The bill of fare was, as is common in their not-particularly-pecunious household, macaroni and cheese.</span><span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;"><span style="line-height: 19.3199996948242px;"></span>One of the pre-teens commented on how different the entree tasted to him from "real" macaroni and cheese -- by which he meant, as pre-teens often do, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. He contrasted my friend's wife's dish unfavorably with the commercial preparation.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">An uncle to the clan cleared his throat. "Kevin," he intoned, "you know I sell cheese, don't you?" The youngster nodded. "Well, it's about time you learned about the Great Pyramid of Cheese." And he told them all about it.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">It seems that there are places where they make Cheese. The real stuff, straight from the milk, brimming with the odorific and oleaginous virtues that your narrator has found he cannot renounce. And it is good.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">Most of it, anyway.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">Some wheels of cheese just don't turn out right. But they're not thrown away, oh, no. That would be wasteful. They're sold to factors from other shops, which take them in, and melt them down, and add oil, and chemicals, and further processing, and thereby produce... Cheese Food.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">Cheese Food is regulated by law to contain no more than 49% non-milk additives, and must not contain any but a specified list of preservatives and artificial flavor enhancers.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">There are people who eat Cheese Food by choice. There are others who are trying to help them.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">But some batches of Cheese Food don't come out right either, and they're not thrown away, either. They're sold to factors from other shops, which take them in, and melt them down, and add oil, and chemicals, and further processing, and thereby produce... Process Pasteurized Cheese Food.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">PPCF is the step down from Cheese Food, and may contain up to 70% non-milk additives, plus a much wider range of flavor and color enhancers, and preservatives that guarantee that it will not spoil over the three months between your toddler's two demands for a grilled cheese sandwich right now, mom!<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">And not all of this is saleable, either, but (you guessed it) it's not thrown away just for that. The rejected barrels are sold to factors from other shops, which take them in, and melt them down, and add oil, and chemicals, and further processing, and thereby produce... Process Pasteurized Cheese Food Substance.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">PPCFS may contain up to 82% non-milk additives. The flavor and color are almost entirely chemically produced, and the preservatives in it are reputed to be stronger than formaldehyde. Velveeta was once PPCFS, but has moved up the pyramid to Level 3 (PPCF). Cheez Whiz is PPCFS. A number of people have drawn images of the Blessed Virgin on their basement walls with PPCFS from spray cans, and have made quite a lot of money.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">But... that's right. Some of it doesn't meet the standards for retail-saleable PPCFS. The rejected barrels are sold to factors from other shops, which take them in, and melt them down, and add oil, and chemicals, and further processing, and thereby produce...</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">Well, it doesn't really have a name, and it doesn't need one, either, because all of it is consumed by a single company.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">"And Kevin," the uncle rumbled, "would you like to guess what that company is?"<br />Little Kevin swallowed and shook his head.<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">"It's the Kraft Company, Kevin."<span style="background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">And I, who have set this tale down for you, have checked it in all particulars, and every word of it is true. And I'm told that little Kevin no longer asks for Kraft Macaroni And Cheese, either."</blockquote>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-52688741498156486512014-12-03T11:26:00.000-05:002014-12-03T11:26:31.575-05:00Climate Change... The New InquistionI was searching for something else, and I came across this piece I wrote back in 2007...<br /><br />...And perhaps unsurprisingly, not much has changed today, except that now catastrophists are saying EVERYTHING is proof of climate change, which can apparently do anything whatsoever, including mutually exclusive and contradictory things, because "science".<br /><br />It's absolutely unfalsifiable.<br /><br />I decide to republish it here, to point out, that while the science against the catastrophists has only accumulated and strengthened; their stridency and grasping demands have only increased.<br /><br />...<br /><br />I say again, the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, except in the case of localized micro-climates, holds absolutely no scientific water.<br /><br />Honest scientists will tell you the same thing if pressed (and if their funding doesn’t depend on it), but the agenda politics of todays science (admittedly on both sides of the political spectrum, but generally on different subjects), prevents real, honest, science from occurring anymore; or from being reported if and when it is (the record of suppressing science which disproves catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is long and shameless at this point).<br /><br />The mere language used by catastrophists against those who seek to use actual science rather than sociopolitical ideological faith, calling us "deniers" in an attempt to paint an equivalence with holocaust deniers, should make it clear that their concern is not truth.<br /><br />The honest numbers are simple.<br /><br />Global temperatures have risen an average of less than 1 degree centigrade since measurements started being taken ("adjusted measurements", which have been conclusively proven to be inaccurate and possibly deliberately manipulated say it may be as much as 1.8 degrees, but that is the absolute maximum).<br /><br />There is no “sudden and precipitous increase”. There is no hockey stick. It was a lie, and even many of the climate change people have admitted it. The ice caps aren’t melting, in fact in most areas they are thickening slightly. The sea level isn’t rising any more than it would have naturally.<br /><br />Oh and in case you didn't know... Polar bears are excellent swimmers.<br /><br />More damning to the catastrophists faith; even by their own admission, there has been NO rise (and there may in fact have been a slight decline) in global average temperatures, SINCE 1996.<br /><br />Since temperature recordings have begun, volcanic eruptions have put more carbon into the atmosphere, and caused more temperature change, than all of human industry and activity since the beginning of the human race; but it wasn’t by increasing temperatures with carbon, it was by decreasing them with dust in the air... much of which was in fact carbon particulates.<br /><br />The world has been far colder than today at times when there was far more carbon in the atmosphere; even without more dust. The world has been far warmer than today with far less carbon in the air, even WITH more dust.<br /><br />The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and carbon particulates in the atmosphere are FAR less than one half of one percent of total carbon dioxide, and far less than one half of one percent of total carbon particulates (the vast majority of CO2 is released by soil, rotting vegetation, oceanic microorganisms, and seafloor offgassing. The vast majority of particulates, are released by forest fires, and volcanic activity ). Considering how small a percentage of our atmospheric carbon and carbon compounds (between 0.03 and 0.06 percent. Not between 3% and 6%, 3 one hundredths of a percent), that amount is completely insignificant to global climate change.<br /><br />This is not to say they don't effect local microclimates, they certainly do. But in those local microclimates, these concentrations are literally hundreds to thousands of times higher.<br /><br />These levels of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere are not a temperature driver, or a climate forcing.<br /><br />In fact, historical records show that overall CO2 levels (which, remember, human inputs make up only a tiny fraction of) TRAIL global climate change by anywhere from a few hundred years, to a few thousand.<br /><br />All currently existing GLOBAL climate change can be fully and scientifically explained by natural endothermic cycles (atmospheric oceanic interaction combined with volcanic and other geothermal activity, and large particulate emissions such as forest fires, plus natural greenhouse component and other climate forcing component emissions), and the fluctuation in output of the sun (because earth is an exothermic system). The suns output has varied greatly over the course of human history (and of course long before), and periods of warming and cooling have tracked right along with that output.<br /><br />Models using average sunspot activity as an indicator of solar thermal forcing, have proven to be accurate within a few percentage points at predicting historical temperatures.<br /><br />Some models (those used by catastrophists) predict that there may be FUTURE global climate change based on a theory that human generated carbon inputs, even though they are far lower than historical levels which did NOT cause these things to happen, will somehow cause the entire climate system to change the way it has always functioned.<br /><br />These models are ridiculous on their face. The way you test a model is to run if forwards and backwards without adjustment, and see if it can accurately predict what actually happened in the past, using the data from further back in the past; then verifying against actual future results over time.<br /><br />None of the models that predict significant global climate change due to human carbon inputs, come anywhere close to predicting the historical record.<br /><br />They always consistently overestimate warming by SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT, as in estimating 4 to 8 times the actual warming.<br /><br />And NONE of them came anywhere close to predicting the variability of the historical record, always showing a consistent warming trend over time, even for CENTURIES that had a significant cooling trend.<br /><br />The models were not made to predict the actual climate... they were specifically made to predict massive warming, &nbsp;no matter the input. And that's what they do, as non-catastrophists have proven, running data which any rational model should predict steady or cooling temperatures through the models... and they STILL predicted significant warming.<br /><br />I leave it up to you to decide whether the models were just designed badly, or whether the distortion was intentional. Either way, these models cannot be trusted, and decisions should certainly not be made based on them.<br /><br />The climate IS changing, and has since the moment the earth formed a climate. As near as we can tell (through ice core samples and the like) there has never been a period of more than 200 years without at least a 1 degree change in global average temperatures.<br /><br />The climate will continue to change on its own; and no normal human activity will change global climate significantly one way or the other… unless it’s something that actually would kill us all (which would by definition not be normal... Incredibly massive particulate pollution over a high percentage of the earths surface - including the oceans - would do it. It would initially trigger warming from trapped thermal radiation, followed by extremely rapid cooling from blocking out the sun, and then a sudden ice age; and likely kill all crops and food animals in the process, along with at least 80% of humanity in the first two years, if not more, and ultimately followed by mass global extinction).<br /><br />That isn’t to say we shouldn’t attempt to develop better sources of energy, we should. We aren’t going to “run out” of oil... ever in fact; a basic understanding of economics would show that. But, hydrocarbon fuels are eventually going to get more and more expensive as time goes on, and hydrocarbon fueled combustion engines are relatively inefficient, and do contribute significantly to micro climate pollution.<br /><br />In many ways, doing things greener IS in fact better. Saving energy is generally a very good thing. Not polluting is generally a good thing. When it isn’t, is when it destroys economies, prevents job growth, reduces food production, increases food prices, and all the other ways that forced greenism (I won’t even call it environmentalism, because it isn’t doing the environment much good), causes pain, suffering, misery, and general reductions in peoples health, quality of life, standard of living, and basic liberties.<br /><br />“Climate change” isn’t about the environment... It’s about giving financial and political control to anti-western, anti-capitalists.... Or just the cynical opportunists who would use peoples good intentions and fears to increase their own power.<br /><br />It’s about punishing those rich capitalist nations and people, for not being poor socialists... Or just for "not doing things the RIGHT way".... whatever that particular person or group happens to think the "right" way is.<br /><br />It isn’t science, it’s a pseudo-scientific sociopolitical ideological movement, and near religion. The adherents don’t need any proof, because they have faith; and any who challenge that faith must be burned as heretics in their new inquisition.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-64450363230721787962014-12-03T04:14:00.000-05:002014-12-03T09:37:19.115-05:00Soylent is made out of Diabetes... DIABETES<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/crowdhoster/soylent/uploads/ckeditor/pictures/data/000/000/006/content.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/crowdhoster/soylent/uploads/ckeditor/pictures/data/000/000/006/content.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br />A commenter asked what I think of Soylent, the food substitute beverage, funded through kickstarter, that is supposed to provide all the nutrition you need in three drinks a day.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">I think it's an abomination before god and man.</span></b><br /><br />Food is meant to be enjoyed, savored, appreciated... it isn't just caloric intake for the purpose of maintaining body temperature.<br /><br />However, in all seriousness, looking at the actual nutritional information, Soylent rather closely adheres to the Food Pyramid, with appx 50% of the calories from carbs, 30% from fat, and 20% from protein.<br /><br />This is the Archer Daniels Midland diet, in its purest form.<br /><br />And I mean that literally... You are literally replacing your entire diet of meats, fruits, vegetables, and grains, with the products of Archer Daniels Midland (they are by far the largest supplier in the country of the primary ingredients)... processed byproducts of corn and rapeseed.<br /><br /><a href="http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0421/5993/t/12/assets/files_Complete-Soylent-Nutrition-Facts-1p2.pdf">http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0421/5993/t/12/assets/files_Complete-Soylent-Nutrition-Facts-1p2.pdf</a><br /><br />The #1 ingredient, and the largest source of calories (almost 50%), is maltodextrin, which is literally corn sugar... or rather it's a polysaccharide derived from cornstarch.<br /><br />Its common use in food is as a thickening agent, to absorb oils, and as a dusting powder; either infused with a flavor (like salt and vinegar potato chips), or to prevent clumping and sticking.<br /><br />It's also used to provide bulk calories in protein shakes, weightlifting supplements, carboloading supplements for runners and cyclists etc...<br /><br />It has the same glycemic index as pure glucose, and it has a similar effect on insulin triggering. Diabetics are specifically warned against consuming maltodextrin in more than very small amounts, for that reason.<br /><br />The lipid component is almost entirely Canola oil, which is one of the highest Omega 6 oils there is, which dramatically increase inflammatory response and arterial hardening, and may contribute to prostate cancer.<br /><br />Basically, the guy formulating this stuff believed all the junk science garbage about low fat, and low saturated fat, and polyunsaturated seed oils, and high carbs being the best diet; and formulated Soylent to match that.<br /><br />The original formula was somewhat better (using olive oil, and having a better carb/protein/fat balance), but it has been reformulated to be cheaper, and vegan.<br /><br />He also formulated it for three meals to have 100% of the minimum RDA of those nutrients defined by the USDA to have a minimum RDA... and NOTHING else.<br /><br />That's idiotic.<br /><br />It's also very engineerlike... which is what the developer of Soylent is... a software engineer.<br /><br />He has stated that he never wants to think about or worry about or have to cook food again, and that science should let us do this cheaper, and be healthier, than eating actual food.<br /><br />He couldn't be more wrong in every way.<br /><br />Never mind the aesthetic issues... and the dehumanization and mechanization of one of lifes greatest joys...<br /><br />Soylent is essentially the worst diet you could possibly have, and still pretend to be "healthy". It seems almost deliberately calculated to cause diabetes and heart disease.<br /><br />I honestly think that if someone who was prediabetic went on soylent for six months, they would end up insulin dependent.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-78444971325429395672014-11-13T10:42:00.002-05:002014-11-13T10:42:50.004-05:00Well FuckOur truck, our only transportation, was stolen overnight, right from our driveway. I was awake all night and didn't hear a thing, and the dogs never stirred, which is really odd.<br /><br />It's a very desirable truck, a 2006 dodge diesel 4x4 in black. It's probably already in pieces.<br /><br />It also had our cameras in it, some other electronics, a bunch of my tools, and most importantly, our car seat.<br /><br />I just checked our insurance, and it won't pay, because it turns out it had been cancelled a few months back because the credit card I had set to autopay had expired, but we didn't get the notification because they were still sending them to the old address.<br /><br />It's just been one damn thing after another the past few years.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-10045930320461804432014-11-11T05:00:00.000-05:002014-11-11T09:01:10.781-05:00The 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month...<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c1Hb-fVmCoQ/VGIWnMVjIsI/AAAAAAAAFqY/6b0KobQ1N-Y/s1600/poppy2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c1Hb-fVmCoQ/VGIWnMVjIsI/AAAAAAAAFqY/6b0KobQ1N-Y/s640/poppy2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br />It is now the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, at Compiegne...<br /><br />In the United States, today is Veterans Day<br /><br />In America, Memorial Day is for the dead, and Veterans Day is for the living. As such, first I wish to give thanks.<br /><br />I thank all of you, still serving to defend our country, those of our friends and allies, and those who, wherever they serve, are fighting to preserve freedom, liberty, justice, and humanity.<br /><br />May god bless you and keep you.<br /><br />I thank all of my brothers and sisters who have served in the past; for the risks you have taken, and the sacrifices you have made.<br /><br />To the rest of the world, today is Remembrance Day, sometimes known as Armistice day, or poppy day; commemorating the moment that the first great war of the last century was ended; in the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month of the year of our lord nineteen hundred and eighteen.<br /><br />96 years gone, and still every year we mark this day<br /><br />Why is it called poppy day?<br /><br />Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Russia... and on the other side Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary (and the remains of the holy roman empire), Turkey (and the other ottomans)... an entire generation of young men in Europe were lost to the most futile, worst run war, in modern history.<br /><br />In four years, 18 million men died (or went missing, which is mostly the same thing), and 22 million men were wounded.<br /><br />In fact, Europe has never recovered from this greatest of historical mistakes. It was the direct aftermath of world war one that lead to world war two; the combination of which largely created the postmodern European culture that is slowly being destroyed from without and within by self hatred, depression, defeatism, socialism, islamist theofascism, and reactionary nationalism.<br /><br />But I digress; I was talking about why it is called poppy day.<br /><br />Flanders is a region of Belgium (along with Wallonia, and northern France), where the fighting in the great war was at it's worst . The worst battles of the war were at Ypres, the Marne, the Somme, and Verdun.<br /><br />At the Somme alone, the British lost 20,000 dead in one single day; and the allied forces (mostly British) lost 120,000 dead, and over 375,000 wounded total; with 100,000 dead and 350,000 wounded on the German side.<br /><br />The battle lasted from July 1st , til November 18th, 1916. Almost five solid months of the most brutal trench warfare ever seen; and nothing to show for it but blood, and mud.<br /><br />Perhaps 200,000 total dead at the Marne (1st and 2nd), perhaps 50,000 at Ypres, Perhaps 300,000 total dead at Verdun... (10 months, and the bloodiest battle of the war, though the Somme had the bloodiest day); and nothing to show for it but blood and mud.<br /><br />There was an amazing thing though... That blood, and that mud... it became magnificently fertile soil; and soon after the fighting ended, all over these horrific battlefields, poppies began to bloom.<br /><br />In the first great war, as had been tradition for most of western history, those killed in battle were buried in the fields where they fell. Their memorials were raised on or close by those battlefields; a tribute to those who fought and died, and a reminder to those who did not.<br /><br />In 1918, there, in Flanders, and Wallonia, and France; there lay an entire generation of men. Millions upon millions of white crosses, millions upon millions of unmarked graves in farmers fields; surrounded by millions upon millions of poppies.<br /><br />A symbol of life, of blood, of the fight for liberty and freedom. The poppies among the dead were taken up; first by the French and the Belgians, then the Canadians and British and Americans.<br /><br />Today, the poppy is a symbol of remembrance, expressed best perhaps by this poem:<br /><blockquote><span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">In Flanders Fields</span><br /><span style="color: red; font-style: italic;">--Lt. Col. John McCrae, M.D. RCA (1872-1918)</span><br /><span style="color: red; font-style: italic;"><br /></span><span style="color: #999999;">In Flanders fields the poppies blow</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">Between the crosses, row on row,</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">That mark our place; and in the sky</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">The larks, still bravely singing, fly</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">Scarce heard amid the guns below.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #999999;">We are the Dead. Short days ago</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">Loved, and were loved, and now we lie</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">In Flanders fields.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #999999;">Take up our quarrel with the foe:</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">To you from failing hands we throw</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">The torch; be yours to hold it high.</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">If ye break faith with us who die</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">We shall not sleep, though poppies grow</span><br /><span style="color: #999999;">In Flanders fields.</span></blockquote>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-21373155219261680492014-11-10T19:49:00.001-05:002014-11-10T23:51:56.291-05:00Net Neutrality… Obama… Cruz… How About Oliver?Today, Barack Obama(D) has announced that he will<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/10/president-obama-net-neutrality-reaction/18797601/"> pretend to support net neutrality</a>: <br /><br /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0" height="390" id="flashObj" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isSlim=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=3884693863001&playerID=2207682275001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAABvaL8JE~,ufBHq_I6Fnwgpz2JFHz_Jerf-MHxK_Ad&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isSlim=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=3884693863001&playerID=2207682275001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAABvaL8JE~,ufBHq_I6Fnwgpz2JFHz_Jerf-MHxK_Ad&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="640" height="390" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><br /><br />In response, Ted Cruz (RPDGC*), has announced that Net Neutrality is the work of the devil: <br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.<br />— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313">November 10, 2014</a></blockquote><br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">The idea that either Democrats OR Republicans actually support net neutrality is a joke.</span></b><br /><br />The Democrats have (and still do) very strongly supported big media and big communications, who are largely anti neutrality. It’s only now that net neutrality has obviously become a big issue among young liberals (who were largely unmotivated to turn out this midterm election), that they have pretended to support it.<br /><br />The Dems could have made it a campaign issue, except then they wouldn’t have had the huge media and communications industry money for the elections, that they needed to avoid getting spanked even worse than they did.<br /><br />If Obama had actually supported net neutrality, he wouldn’t have appointed an anti neutrality industry stooge as FCC chair… but again, if he did that, the Dems would have lost that sweet sweet big media money.<br /><br />On the other hand, the Republicans are largely anti “big media” and anti “big communications”, and only became anti-neutrality when the Democrats decided to take it as an issue.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">What is Net Neutrality?</span></b><br /><br />Frankly, any libertarian should support net neutrality as a principle (government regulation is another matter).<br /><br />Net neutrality as a principle, is simple. All legitimate traffic should be treated equally, no matter the source or destination. No internet service provider should filter, censor, or slow down traffic from their competitors, their critics, or because of politics or national origin; or for any reason other than technical requirements for safe, efficient, and reliable network operation.<br /><br />It’s how the internet has always been run, up until recently, without any government action necessary. There’s a famous quote: “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”. Any internet service provider that censored, filtered, or slowed down traffic from anyone (for anything other than technical reasons) was routed around, and cut out of the net, by its peers. It was a great example of independent action and peer enforcement working in the marketplace.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Why is it an issue now?</span></b><br /><br />Large media and communications companies like Comcast and Verizon have been deliberately and artificially blocking or slowing down traffic to and from their critics and competitors.<br /><br />Of course, getting government involved does generally make things worse. In fact, it already did in this case, since the government has been involved from the beginning, and it was largely government action that created the current problem.<br /><br />In a rational and unbiased competitive environment, consumers would have a reasonable choice of internet service providers, and any ISP that chose to censor or limit access, would lose customers, and either correct themselves or go out of business.<br /><br />Unfortunately, we don’t have anything like a free and competitive market in internet access. Government regulation and favoritism has created huge monopolies (or at best duopolies, and no, wireless access is not realistic and reasonable competition given the distorted market and cost structures there either) in internet access.<br /><br />We've reached a point where the telecommunications monopolies that government created and support, are in fact deliberately applying anticompetitive, unfair (and in some cases already unlawful) restraint against their critics and competitors.<br /><br />Since they are government supported monopolies, the market is not allowed to correct the undesirable private action.<br /><br />This means that, unfortunately, government action IS required… and even if it were not required, it’s inevitable, because politics is politics, and this is now an “Issue”.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">So what do we do about the problem?</span></b><br /><br />Please note, I don’t trust either Democrats OR Republicans on the issue in general, and I don’t trust either, or the FCC to regulate neutrality at all. Cruz does have at least one valid concern, in that the history of government regulation of almost every industry, but particularly technology, is mainly a long record of suppressing innovation and other negative unintended consequences.<br /><br />The ideal solution is to end the government created internet access monopolies that most Americans live under, and allow free and open market competition to correct the problem.<br /><br />Without government limitations on competition in actual high speed, high quality internet access; competition will increase, prices will fall, and any provider that filters or slows legitimate traffic will lose all their customers and go out of business.<br /><br />This isn't just a prediction or libertarian idealism talking by the way. It’s been proved out in Korea, Japan… even in the UK. Everywhere that internet access competition has been allowed to flourish, everything has improved (conversely, in the U.S. where we have deliberately increased the power and scope of these monopolies, we have the worst internet access of any technologically advanced nation).<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen.</span></b><br /><br />The next best thing, is to mandate net neutrality in the least intrusive, least stupid way possible, and to react intelligently (and rapidly) to changes in technology and its uses, to avoid regulatory distortion and suppression of innovation.<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen either…</span></b><br /><br />That said, it’s remotely possible for us get closer to that, quicker, than we can to disassembling the thousands of federal, state, and local regulations, which have created these monopolies, and made the barriers to entry for competition impossibly high.<br /><br />Of course neither Democrats nor Republicans support or plan to do that.<br /><br />The whole thing is a spiraling charlie fox of disingenuous cynical idiocy.<br /><br />Personally, I say forget Obama, forget Cruz, and <a href="http://youtu.be/fpbOEoRrHyU">listen to Oliver</a> (or if you don't care for Oliver, or can't watch a video, theres&nbsp;<a href="http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality">The Oatmeal</a>):<br /><br /><object height="315" width="560"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/fpbOEoRrHyU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/fpbOEoRrHyU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /><em><br /></em><em>*Reactionary Populist Disingenuous Grandstanding Cynic... not the Republican party, just Cruz</em>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-54845454696261663332014-11-05T22:59:00.001-05:002014-11-05T22:59:13.871-05:00NOverrideCongratulations Republicans, you have a near record majority in the house, and what appears will be 54 seats in the senate (three races were still undecided at this writing. At least one is a near certain Republican victory, one appears likely so, and one is likely a democrat Victory).<br /><br />Some folks have been saying things like "Well, yeah, Obama's gonna veto everything... but hey at least we'll have a veto proof majority on some things, that a lot of Democrats support".<br /><br />Don't count on it.<br /><br />Minority Democratic support for some "Republican issues" was allowed before, because it didn't matter. There was no consequence to it.<br /><br />I can almost guarantee you, there will not be one single override. No Democrat will be allowed by the leadership to be counted publicly supporting Republicans, against president Obama and the rest of the democratic party... at least not if an override would be successful.<br /><br />Now, it's an entirely different situation. A Democratic defection will be both a PR and a political disaster. It will hurt and weaken the Democrats even more than this election already has, and crash morale even more than it already has.<br /><br />Unless a Democrat will lose his seat if he doesn't vote to override a specific veto, it will NOT happen. In that case the leadership MIGHT let them vote for an override, maybe, if there is no chance of an override passing.<br /><br />If the situation is dire enough, a Dem congresscritter might actually defect without clearance... but that would have to be something pretty dire, because there is just about ZERO chance any Dem who did that would ever be forgiven if the override succeeded. They'd have to switch parties.<br /><br />Of course, if there's no chance of the override succeeding, most likely there won't even be an override vote (and if there really were such a chance, then Obama wouldn't veto, unless it were something the Dems absolutely could not stand for... in which case, again, there's no way it would get enough Dem support to be overridden).<br /><br />Even if there is however... Do you really think there will be 12 (presuming the total is 54 as it appears it will be) senators who will lose their seats if they don't override, on any specific issue? There are quite possibly 12 Democrats total who might lose their seats if they didn't override on issues that were very important to their state... but 12 on a single issue?<br /><br />Of course, they could also put doing the right thing, for the good of their state and the nation, above politics...<br /><br />... Oh... sorry... can't stop laughing at that thought right now...Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-85618190664465231282014-11-01T05:53:00.001-04:002014-11-01T05:53:27.075-04:00Outside Looking In<div class="tr_bq">In 2003, on the occasion of the loss of space shuttle Columbia, I wrote an essay titled “Outside Looking In”. As it happens, I think it’s one of the best things I’ve ever written, and possibly the most important.</div><br />Yesterday, we lost Virgin Galactic’s spaceship two (and at least one of its two crew. The other is in critical condition). Within minutes, the cries to end all manned space travel had resurfaced in full force. People are already gnashing teeth and rending garments, and wailing, that space isn’t worth dying for.<br /><br />Given this, I thought it would be appropriate to post the original essay here.<br /><br />Nothing has changed substantially since I wrote it, except that even the desperately backward and hindering shuttle program has ended… and that now, it’s actually more than 42 years since we last set foot on the moon.<br /><br />I should be clear… I’m not upset the shuttle is gone…<br /><br />I’m angry that the shuttle is gone, and there’s no replacement.<br /><br />I’m angry that we’re dependent on another country to lift our astronauts into space.<br /><br />I’m ANGRY that the shuttle was over 30 years old, and we poured resources and energy into the shuttle program for 40 years, with basically no real development of an alternate solution.<br /><br />Except that’s not PRECISELY true.<br /><br />There has been LOTS of development on alternate solutions, none of which have been allowed to succeed (and only two have even been allowed to proceed to where NASA was in 1960).<br /><br />We’ve spent tens of billions on alternate solutions, both public sector and private. Unfortunately, NASA has spent the entire time actively suppressing, delaying, or killing anything that would compete with or replace the shuttle; all as part of the bureaucratic funding fight.<br /><br />I know this first hand, having been involved in several of the SSTO projects in the 90s (I was free labor, as an engineering student and intern. I’m a pilot, an aviation and space nut, my primary degree is in Aerospace engineering, and I’ve been a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics since I was 18).<br /><br />Now, people, and I’m sure organizations and interest groups, are already trying to use this crash to attempt to ban private manned space travel.<br /><br />… which really means that most of them are trying to end all manned space travel period; since it’s not like the public sector has done much to advance the state of human space travel since 1972.<br /><br />It has been 45 years since we first landed on the moon, and 42 since Eugene Cernan (the last man to walk on the moon) stepped back into his landing module, and we left it.<br /><br />I’m angry, because we have willingly, even eagerly, become a frigate navy nation.<br /><br />it’s 2014… We should have spacelines. We should have private spacecraft available for purchase to anyone. We should be living on the moon, living on mars… we should be out in the stars.<br /><br />Instead, we’re still countering the nattering of cowards and fools, who only want to look inward.<br /><br />I’m angry… I’m more than angry, I’m disgusted.<br /><br /><blockquote><b>Outside Looking In — Chris Byrne, 2003&nbsp;</b></blockquote><blockquote>We have spent the last 30 years collectively contemplating our belly buttons.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Let me explain what I mean by that (this is gonna take a while so get comfortable).&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Throughout most of history, humanity as a race has been outward looking. We strode out through the world around us to learn, to achieve, and to conquer.</blockquote><blockquote>From the earliest days of humanity we have looked outside ourselves for meaning.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>First we had medicine men and shamans who looked to the spirits.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Then we had priests who looked to the gods.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Then we had philosophers who looked to the nature of the universe, and sought to find mans place within it.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Finally there came that extraordinary breed of men to whom Isaac Newton belonged to. They called themselves the natural philosophers, we now call them scientists.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Each of these groups of people sought to divine meaning, reason, purpose, from that which surrounded us.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We were on the inside looking out in wonder, and eventually, with some small degree of understanding.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>This point of view was reflected in our societies as well.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We explored, and built, and grew. We strove for bigger, more, faster, better.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The expression of this has often been called “pioneer spirit”.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It’s the challenge to go forth and do that which has not been done.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It’s the desire to climb the mountain “because it’s there”.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>This spirit quickly had us wee humans spread across this globe, living in almost every corner, no matter how hostile it seemed to our rather thin and frail skins.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>This is the spirit that Americans inherited from the British, the Spanish, and the Portuguese; who it seems, have managed somehow to lose it over the past two hundred and fifty years.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>This is the spirit that pushed us from sea to sea, the spirit that flung us up into the sky, the spirit that exploded us out into space.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>This is the spirit best voiced by John F. Kennedy when he said “We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Over the past 100 or so years this spirit became focused primarily on science and technology.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We stopped exploring, not because we ran out of places to explore, but because we did not have the technology to explore them. So we built it, and we built it fast.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It took only us 44 years to make the headlong rush from the Wright brothers, to sustained supersonic flight.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It was only another ten years before we managed to stick something far enough up there that it wouldn’t come right back down again.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Three and a half years later we finally opened up the door and left the home of our birth; when on April 12th 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first man to see the earth, from the outside looking in.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Gene Roddenberry wouldn’t make the line famous for another 16 years, but Yuri Alekseyevich truly had, boldly gone where no man has gone before. One of us had finally made it off the rock.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Then, at 10:56 pm EDT , July 20, 1969 we managed the short hop to the next rock. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, had made it to the moon.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We only went back five more times over the next three years. 12 men spent a total of 170 hours on the moon, and left behind, not much really. A few scientific instruments, a few spacecraft bits and pieces, the worlds most expensive dune buggy, an American flag, and a plaque that reads:&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>“Here Man completed his first exploration of the Moon, December 1972 A.D. May the spirit of peace in which we came be reflected in the lives of all mankind.”&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>And with these words, spoken by cmdr. Eugene Cernan on December 11th 1972:&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>“America’s challenge of today has forged man’s destiny of tomorrow”&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>…we turned out the lights and went home.</blockquote><br /><blockquote>Unfortunately there has been no tomorrow.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>As I was saying, we have spent the last 30 years contemplating our belly buttons.<br />After World War II most of the world stopped looking forward, and started looking inward.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>There were too many social problems.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>There was too much poverty and hunger and disease.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>There was far too much pain screaming out at us from the horrors of the preceding 10 years.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The spirit of exploration that had pervaded humanity since it’s earliest days was completely gone from Europe by the 1960’s. It had never really existed in east Asia, where culture and philosophy had been directed inward for thousands of years.<br />It had not existed in the middle east since the days before the ottoman empire.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The only explorers left by the 60’s were America, and Russia, and Russia was only really doing it to compete with America.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>People all over the world started questioning the values that had formed previous generations’ assumptions.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The generation born between the end of the depression, and just after the war, KNEW that there were more important things than exploration.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>They KNEW that this desire for exploration was just another form of conquest and exploitation and imperialism just like the ones that had brought about the worst conflict in human history.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>They KNEW that exploring space was waste of time and money that could be better spent on ending hunger, or disease, or racism.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>And so we began to turn inward.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>With books like “the catcher in the rye”, “On the Road”, “One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest”, we started looking more at ourselves, and our neighbors, and less at the outside world, and the outside universe.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It took until 1972, but with the war in Vietnam, Richard Nixon and Watergate, price controls, inflation, the CIA and FBI, the Israeli situation, the Irish situation, and every other god damned miserable thing going on in this god damned miserable world…&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>They KNEW that they weren’t going to spend another dime going to the moon ‘til we had fixed things down here on earth.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>In the broader culture things started changing even more.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We encouraged people to take a good long look at themselves.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>To find themselves.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>To say I’m Ok You’re Ok.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>To be fair, a hell of a lot of good came out of this.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>For the first time we started seriously exploring the WHY behind a lot of mental and emotional problems.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We started leaving bad marriages behind, and we started trying to be happier.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We started doing something about racism, sexism and pollution.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>…But as usual, we went too far.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We started confusing confidence with arrogance.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We decided that power was bad.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We made aggression and competition synonymous with evil.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We started subverting science to ideology, and we decided that ideology was after all, a science.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>In our most extreme moments, we decided that boys were bad and girls were good.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>That white was bad and black was good.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>That both old and new were bad, and only NOW, ME, and US, was good.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We stopped moving forward.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We stopped looking outward.</blockquote><blockquote>Instead, we are spending all of our time looking sideways, up, down, in, and increasingly backward.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Maybe this wouldn’t be too bad if we weren’t so bad at it.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It would be a good thing, if we were able to do so without damaging ourselves, and without halting progress.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>…But so far, we aren’t.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We haven’t been out of high orbit since 1972.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It only took us 66 years to go from being earthbound, to setting foot on another planet.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>In the past 30 years we have have gone no farther, no faster, no higher.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We have stopped going where no man has gone before.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Charles Krauthammer wrote in the weekly standard that “we have put ourselves into a low earth orbit holding pattern”.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Putting it a little more directly, we’re circling the parking lot looking for a space, instead of getting out of the damned shopping mall, and actually going some place and doing something.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The most significant technologies of the last thirty years have been global telecommunications; exemplified in the internet, and biotechnology.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Both of these are essentially focused inward.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The internet has the potential to be the single greatest advance in mass communication since the printing press.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It allows for true interactive communication on a global scale, but it is essentially inward facing.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Why?&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Because it exists to exchange information we already have.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The internet spreads knowledge around better than anything we’ve ever come up with and that’s great.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It’s the greatest enabler of science history has ever known because it allows the freer and easier exchange of ideas, but the net in and of itself does little to advance the state of human knowledge.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The internet is not like the microscope or the telescope or the space craft. Completely new things are not discovered or created by the internet, though they have without doubt been enabled by it.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>BioTechnology is by very definition focused inward.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>At it’s deepest level BioTech is the study of what makes us what we are. It promises to unlock near limitless potential for our biological beings.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It opens the door to the possibility of ending old age, disease, hunger, even death itself. It offers potential dangers equal to its potential wonders.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>BioTech is probably the second most important field of technology ever devised, but exploration is still by far the most important.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>As no nation can be great without looking beyond its borders, no race can be great without looking beyond its planet.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Whether there are other races out there, or we are alone; if as a race we are ever to progress beyond our current state of semi civilized savagery, to progress beyond a planet full of petty squabbles between nations, that just might incidentally kill us all; we need to venture off this planet in the largest scale possible.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We need to live on, not just visit other planets.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>This is a concrete lesson of history.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We started out as individuals.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We fought and died as individuals until we formed villages, clans, and tribes<br />With villages we had a larger purpose and organization, and the fighting between individuals lessened.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>For thousands of years villages, clans, and tribes killed each other until we formed city-states. Then the fighting between tribes lessened.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>We began to form principalities and petty kingdoms, and they repeated the pattern, lessening the conflicts between cities.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Finally we formed nations, and eventually ended most organized conflict between smaller groups.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>But we created the nation about 10,000 years ago, and we haven’t really come very far since.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Half of Europe was STILL in the city state or principality phase 250 years ago.<br />Germany is now by far the largest and most important nation in Europe (no matter what France and England may say), but it only became a true nation in 1872.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>The United Nations is, at best, an ineffective organization with more politics than solutions. At worst, it is an organization used to spread the ugliest prejudices of humans, while decrying the actions needed to stop them, and masking it all under cynical self righteousness.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It is clear that until we become an extraplanetary race, we will never achieve anything resembling a free society of all human beings.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It is similarly clear that once we do become truly extraplanetary, such a society is, if not inevitable, at least more likely.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Many would say that we need to solve our problems here on earth first.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>They believe that we can’t afford space exploration while people starve, and die of disease, and are denied basic human rights.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>They say that it costs too much, that it’s dangerous, that it has little benefit to the vast majority of humanity that has barely enough to eat.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>They are right in many ways…&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>…but if as a people we don’t get the hell off this rock…&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>…what will it matter?&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>It will be a case of belly button contemplating on a racial scale.</blockquote>Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9608325.post-16277894904953678062014-10-31T01:47:00.000-04:002014-10-31T01:47:23.257-04:00Car Geek Flame War... The Definitive Best Looking 'Vette DebateOk... best looking vette debate...<br /><br />This is not about the most desirable, the most expensive, the best engines, the best handling... Simply the best looking vettes.<br /><br />Primary weighting is on exterior looks, but tiebreakers can move to the interior.<br /><br />Only production or copo models, road legal, and available for sale to the general public count (so no grand am, GT, or true grand sport vettes for example, as they were track only cars), nor do road legal replicas of track only cars.<br /><br />On the other hand L-88 and ZL1 (vettes which really were meant to be track cars) with the big block hoods and the side pipes etc... DO count, because they were actually sold to real buyers as street legal road cars.<br /><br />I cant decide between:<br /><br /><ol><li>Tunnel back C3 coupe (with or without the big block hood, flares, chrome bumpers, and duck tail or slant tail)<br /></li><li>C3 convertible (with or without the big block hood, flares, chrome bumpers, and duck tail or slant tail)<br /></li><li>C2 convertible (with or without the big block hood)<br /></li><li>Single light side cove C1 convertible ('56-'57)<br /></li><li>Double light C1 convertible, double taillight round tail ('58-'60)<br /></li><li>Double light C1 convertible, quad taillight boattail ('61-62)</li></ol><br /><br />Subsidiary question... sidepipes are awesome... but are they always better on every model they originally came on? I can't decide.<br /><br />Oh and yeah... I don't think anything C4 or later is even in the top ten, or even top 15 of best looking vettes (given that 1 and 2 above are actually a half dozen different models each).<br /><br />...MAYBE the ZR1, and square taillight C4s make it into the top 20... maybe.Chris Byrnehttps://plus.google.com/118423250066428470237noreply@blogger.com0